1 


'^^mih 


-1  '   ^ 

■St                         ' 

it 

1 

^                        PRINCETON,  N.  J. 

\ 
1 

r 

.    .       •   ' 

1 

!  S/ie//  ^ 

BL    48    .T58   v. 2 
Tiele,    C.    P.    1830-1902 
Elements   of   the   science   of 
religion 

' 

'MM. 


im 


j^"V^-a; 


^^Hv>- 


'^:^ 


m 


m^ 


vj. 


mmssiim 


'^^t^^ 


.   /    ^  ^ 

y^^" 


>  *  #^ 


ELEMENTS 


OF 


THE   SCIENCE   OF   EELIGION 


PART  II.    ONTOLOGIGAL 


'i 


Digitized  by  the  Internet  Archive 

in  2008  with  funding  from 

IVIicrosoft  Corporation 


http://www.archive.org/details/elementsofscienc02tiel 


ELEMENTS 


OF 


THE    SCIENCE    OF   RELIGION 


PART  II.    ONTOLOaiGAL 


THE  GIFPORD  LECTURES  DELIVERED  BEFORE  THE  UNIVERSITY 
OF  EDINBURGH  IN   1898 


BY  /y 
a     p.     TIELE 

THEOL.  D.  ;    LITT.  D.   (bONON.);   HON.  M.R.A.S.,   ETC. 

'ROFESSOR   OF  THE   HISTORY  AND  PHILOSOPHY   OF  RELIGION    IN   THE 
UNIVERSITY   OF   LEYDEN 


IN    TWO    VOLUMES 
VOL.    IL 


NEW     YORK 

CHAELES     SCEIBJ^ER'S     SONS 

153-157   FIFTH    AVENUE 

1899 


All  Rights  reserved 


PEEFACE, 


The  ten  lectures  contained  in  this  second  volume  were 
delivered  by  me,  in  my  capacity  of  Gifford  Lecturer, 
in  the  University  of  Edinburgh,  in  November  and 
December  1898,  They  form  the  second  half  of  a 
course  on  the  Science  of  Religion,  and  they  treat  of 
the  Ontologiccd  part  of  that  science. 

They  have  been  rendered  into  English,  from  the 
Dutch  in  which  they  were  originally  written,  by  the 
same  friend  who  translated  the  first  half  of  my  course, 
as  published  in  the  first  volume  in  1897,  to  the  Preface 
of  which  I  beg  to  refer.  My  translator  has  also  added 
a  full  Index  to  both  volumes,  which  will  greatly  facili- 
tate reference  to  their  contents.  Having  been  kindly 
revised  by  another  friend,  as  well  as  by  myself,  this 
series  is  entirely  uniform  with  the  preceding.     To  both 


vi  PREFACE. 

of   these   disinterested   friends   my   grateful    acknow- 
ledgments are  due. 

In  this  volume,  as  in  the  first,  I  have  printed  in  full 
several  passages  which  want  of  time  prevented  me 
from  delivering  orally. 

Although  keenly  alive  to  the  difficulties  of  my  task 
and  the  imperfection  of  its  fulfilment,  I  have  again 
been  encouraged  by  the  cordial  reception  and  close 
attention  accorded  to  me  by  large  audiences  to  hope 
that  my  work  has  been  appreciated.  While  my  aims 
and  method  have  been  purely  scientific,  they  will,  as 
I  venture  to  believe,  tend  to  prove  that  between  pure 
science  and  true  religion  nothing  but  perfect  and  abid- 
ing harmony  can  prevail. 

C.  P.  TIELE. 

Edinburgh,  December  1898. 


CONTENTS  OF  THE  SECOND  VOLUME. 


I.    THE    MANIFESTx\.TIONS    x\.ND    CONSTITUENTS    OF    RE- 
LIGION           ......  1 

II.    GENESIS   AND    VALUE   OF   CONCEPTIONS   OF   FAITH      .  25 

III.    PHILOSOPHY   AND   ilELIGIOUS   DOCTRINE           .                 .  50 
IV.   THE    CONSTANT    ELEMENT    IN    ALL    CONCEPTIONS    OF 

GOD  .  .  .  .  .  .76 

V.   THE   RELATIONSHIP   BETWEEN   GOD   xVND   MAN               .  100 

VI.    WORSHIP,    PRAYERS,   AND   OFFERINGS    -^         .                 .  127 

VII.    RELIGION  AS  A  SOCIAL  PHENOMENON — THE  CHURCH  155 

VIII.   INQUIRY  INTO  THE  BEING  OR  ESSENCE  OF  RELIGION  182 

IX.   INQUIRY   INTO   THE   ORIGIN    OF   RELIGION       .                 .  208 

X.   THE   PLACE   OF   RELIGION   IN   SPIRITUAL   LIFE               .  237 


265 


E  E  R  A  T  A. 


VOL.  I. 


62,  in  8th  line  from  top,  delete  the  word  "von." 
122,  in  oth  line  from  foot,  delete  the  word  "  von." 
127,  in  10th  line  from  top,  delete  the  word  "von.' 
276,  in  5th  line  from  foot,  delete  the  word  *'von.' 


VOL.    IL 


29,  in  9th  line  from  foot,  /or  "  mean  "  read  "  means." 
76,  in  3rd  line  from  top, /or  "conception  "  read  "conceptions." 
86,  in  middle,  remove  bracket  after  "half -human"  and  place  it  after 
"head"  in  the  next  line. 
116,  in  5th  line  from  top,  for  "  mortal "  read  "  moral." 
134,  in  11th  line  from  top, /or  "that"  read  "than." 
258,  in  3rd  line  from  foot,  delete  the  word  "in." 
266,  col.  2,  in  last  line,  for  "  195  "  read  "  95." 
268,  col.  2,  in  7th  Hne  from  top,  for  "  166  "  read  "  IL  166." 
270,  col.  2,  in  last  hne,  before  "66"  insert  "I." 
273,  col.  1,  in  16th  line  from  top,  for  "  103  "  read  "  163." 
276,  col.  1,  in  14th  line  from  foot, /or  "Maraduk"  read  "Maruduk." 
285,  col.  2,  in  18th  Hue  from  foot,  for  "  anthropical "  read   ''theri- 
anthropical." 


SCIENCE    OF    RELIGION. 

LECTUEE    I. 

THE   MANIFESTATIONS   AND    CONSTITUENTS    OF   EELIGION. 

In  my  previous  course  I  endeavoured  to  explain  my 
views  regarding  the  development  of  religion.  We  in- 
vestigated the  stages  and  the  directions  of  its  develop- 
ment; we  attempted  to  establish  several  laws  or 
conditions  which  that  development  obeys ;  and  lastly 
we  tried  to  determine  wherein  that  development  essen- 
tially consists.  We  were  concerned,  in  short,  with 
an  introduction  to  the  morphological  part  of  the 
science  of  religion.  A  different  task  now  awaits  us. 
We  have  hitherto  been  occupied  with  the  ever-chang- 
ing forms  and  varying  manifestations  of  religion 
throughout  human  history,  but  we  must  now  inquire 
as  to  what  is  permanent  in  the  forms  arising  out  of 
each  other,  and  superseding  each  other,  and  as  to  the 
elements  they  all  possess  in  common.     This  alone  will 

VOL.  II.  A 


2  SCIENCE   OF  RELIGION. 

enable  us,  so  far  as  our  limited  knowledge  permits,  to 
determine  the  essence  of  religion  and  ascend  to  its 
origin.  The  subject  of  this  second  course  will  there- 
fore be  an  introduction  to  the  ontological  part  of  the 
science  of  religion. 

I  am  fully  aware  that  this  part  of  my  task  is  more 
difficult  than  the  first.  To  classify  and  explain  phen- 
omena, and  to  trace  the  development  which  they  in- 
dicate, is  not  so  easy  a  task  as  simply  to  describe  them 
or  to  study  them  within  a  particular  period  of  develop- 
ment, as  for  example  in  the  history  of  a  single  religion 
or  a  single  important  epoch.  But  it  is  a  still  more 
difficult  task  to  penetrate  to  the  source  whence  they 
all  spring,  and  to  discover  the  Unity  in  their  multi- 
plicity and  diversity.  I  will  not,  however,  dogmati- 
cally formulate  my  conclusions.  I  shall  confine  my- 
self to  the  task  of  investigation,  or  merely  to  that  of 
initiating  an  investigation,  and  shall  attempt  nothing 
more  ambitious.  Adhering  to  the  same  method  as 
before,  we  shall  start  from  the  solid  ground  of  anthro- 
pology and  history,  the  well  -  ascertained  results  of 
which  can  alone  enable  us  to  understand  the  essence 
of  religion  and  trace  it  to  its  source. 

We  therefore  again  take  our  stand  upon  established 
facts.  And  the  first  question  we  have  to  answer  is — 
Can  we  discover,  among  religious  phenomena,  any  that 
recur  so  invariably  that  we  are  justified  in  regarding 
them  as  necessary  manifestations  of  religious  conscious- 


THE  MANIFESTATIONS   OF  RELIGION.  3 

ness,  whatever  stage  of  development  the  religion  may 
have  attained  ?  Or,  in  other  words,  Does  religion  contain 
any  constant  elements,  none  of  which  it  can  lack  with- 
out injuring  it  and  rendering  it  imperfect,  and  which 
therefore  belong  to  every  sound  and  normal  religion  ? 

It  seems  easy  enough  to  answer  this  question.  Most 
people  who  hear  it  will  probably  think  that  we  need 
not  be  philosophers  or  scholars  in  order  to  answer  it. 
Man  is  a  thinking,  feeling,  and  willing  being,  and  this 
must  show  itself  in  his  religion  also.  And  in  point  of 
fact,  this  is  proved  by  history  and  the  study  of  re- 
ligions. In  every  religion,  from  the  lowest  to  the 
highest,  we  find  certain  conceptions  regarding  the 
supernatural  powers  upon  which  men  feel  their  depend- 
ence, certain  sentiments  they  cherish  towards  them, 
and  certain  observances  they  perform  in  their  honour. 
This  common  and  popular  view,  although  inexact  as 
we  shall  afterwards  see,  corresponds  fairly  well  with 
reality.  It  has  been  countenanced  by  scientific  au- 
thors, and  adopted  in  various  handbooks.  Professor 
Ehys  Davids,^  for  example,  has  recently  defined  the 
word  religion  as  "  a  convenient  expression  for  a  very 
complex  set  of  mental  conditions,  including,  firstly, 
beliefs  as  to  internal  and  external  mysteries  (souls  and 
gods)  ;  secondly,  the  mental  attitude  induced  by  those 
beliefs ;  and  thirdly,  the  actions  and  conduct  depen- 

1  Buddhism,  its  History  and  Literature  :  New  York  and   Loudon, 
1896,  p.  4. 


4  SCIENCE  OF  RELIGION. 

dent  on  both."  He  adds,  however,  that  these  conditions 
are  by  no  means  fixed  and  unchangeable,  and  that  they 
"are  never  the  same  in  any  two  individuals" — a  fact 
which  we  are  the  last  to  deny,  because  they  differ  in 
accordance  with  every  one's  character  and  development 
— yet  he  calls  them  "  the  constituent  elements  of  re- 
ligion." Others  again  mention  only  two  constituents 
of  religion,  conceptions  and  ritual,  with  the  religious 
community  founded  upon  these ;  but  they  regard  both 
as  manifestations  of  religious  faith,  and  they  deem  the 
relation  between  the  worshipper  and  his  god  as  essen- 
tial in  every  religion  (Eauwenhoff) ;  ^  or,  like  the 
philosopher  Teichmiiller,  they  resolve  every  imagin- 
able form  of  religion  into  Dogmatic,  Ethic,  and  Cult;^ 
or  lastly,  according  to  the  most  recent  theory,  they 
explain  this  threefold  basis  by  saying  that  religion 
consists  in  a  direction  of  the  will  coincident  with  a 
conception  of  the  deity,  and  that  sentiment  is  the 
badge  of  its  real  existence.^ 

Seeing  then  that  there  is  so  much  agreement  in  the 
main  among  inquirers  of  entirely  different  schools,  in 
spite  of  differences  in  detail  and  exposition,  it  would 
seem  impossible  to  doubt  the  accuracy  of  the  popular 
view.     Yet  the  matter  is  not  so  simple  as  it  appears. 

1  Wijsbegeerte  vau  den  Godsdienst ;  Leiden,  1887. 

2  Religionsphilosophie  ;  Breslau,  1886. 

^  0.   Pfleiderer,  Religionsgeschichte  auf  geschichtlicher  Grundlage, 
3te  neu  bearbeitete  Ausgabe  ;  Berlin,  1896. 


THE  MANIFESTATIONS  OF  RELIGION.  5 

I  cannot  here  enter  upon  a  criticism  of  each  of  the 
systems  named.  Nor  will  I  mention  those  who  regard 
one  of  these  three  elements  as  the  sole  essential  of 
religion — such  as  agnostics  and  mystics,  who  sum  up 
all  religion  in  a  vague  feeling  of,  or  mysterious  union 
with,  the  divine  (tuiio  mystica);  or  such  as  the  advo- 
cates of  a  school  of  theology  which,  though  it  has 
strong  opponents,  now  finds  many  adherents  in  Ger- 
many, who  regard  religion  merely  as  a  practical  system, 
and  the  church  merely  as  an  insurance  society  for  the 
attainment  of  temporal  and  eternal  happiness,  a  sys- 
tem of  which  the  religious  doctrine  is  but  the  theory, 
borrowed  from  philosophy  in  content  and  form,  while 
religious  sentiment  is  simply  modelled  upon  the  re- 
quirements of  ethics  with  the  needful  modifications.^ 
This,  however,  relates  to  systems  which  we  can  only 
discuss  in  another  connection.  But  I  must  not  omit 
to  point  out  that  the  agreement  of  these  views  is  not 
so  great  as  their  difference,  and  that  the  definition  of 
religion  given  by  Ehys  Davids  as  a  set  of  three  mental 
conditions,  among  which,  curiously  enough,  he  includes 
actions  and  conduct,  is  a  very  different  thing  from 
Pfleiderer's  view  that  the  essence  of  religion  consists 
in  a  direction  of  the  will  coinciding  with  certain  con- 
ceptions of  the  deity,  and  that  sentiment  is  merely  a 
badge  of  its  real  existence.     I  must  frankly  confess,  in 

^  W.  Bender.     Das  Wesen  der  Religion  und  die  Grundgesetze  der 
Kirchenbildung,  4e  Aufl.,  1888. 


6  SCIENCE  OF  RELIGION. 

passing,  my  inability  to  understand  how  anything  can 
be  a  badge  of  the  real  existence  of  something  different, 
without   necessarily    belonging   to   its   essence.      But 
above  all  it  must  be  clearly  kept  in  view  that  concep- 
tions, sentiments,  and  actions  are  not,  strictly  speaking, 
kindred  or  really  correlative  terms.     Words  and  deeds 
are  kindred  and  correlative ;  and  we  do  not  require  to 
prove  that  religion  manifests  itself  in  both  of  these, 
whether   the   words   be    merely   the    stammerings   of 
primitive  man,  or  poetic  myths,  or  doctrines  moulded 
in  philosophic  form,  or  whether,  among  deeds,  we  in- 
clude religious  observances,  or,  in  a  wider  sense,  the 
whole  of  man's  religious  life.     And  so,  too,  religious 
emotions,  conceptions,  and  sentiments  are  kindred  and 
correlative ;  they  arise  out  of  each  other,  as  we  shall 
see,  and  moreover  they  all  form  the  source  of  words 
and  deeds,  to  which  they  alone  give  a  religious  impress. 
Words  and  deeds,  creed  and  cult,  understood  in  their 
widest   sense,   can   alone   literally   be    manifestations. 
Although    these    are    not   infallible    signs    of  the  real 
existence  of  religion— because  words  may  be  repeated 
without  conviction,  and  deeds  may   be  aped  without 
meaning — yet  it  must  be  admitted  that  every  living 
religion   produces    them   spontaneously,   and   that   no 
religion  is  complete  without  both  of  them.     But  they 
cannot  be  called  constituents  of  religion.     The  true 
constituents  of  religion  are  emotions,  conceptions,  and 
\^-  sentiments,  of  which  words  and  deeds  are  at  once  the 


THE  MANIFESTATIONS  OF  RELIGION.  7 

offspring  and  the  index.  To  describe  these  constitu- 
ents as  manifestations  seems  to  me  a  misuse  of  the 
term. 

We  therefore  distinguish  the  forms  in  which  religion 
is  manifested  from  the  constituents  of  religion.  These 
forms  consist,  as  I  have  said,  in  words  and  deeds.  I 
must  now  explain  this  a  little  further.  The  words  in 
which  religious  sentiment  finds  utterance — those  alone 
which  flow  spontaneously  from  the  heart,  which  eman- 
ate from  inward  impulse,  which  conform  to  the  apostolic 
saying,  "  We  believe,  and  therefore  we  speak,"  but  not 
those  which  are  thoughtlessly  mumbled  by  rote — the 
words  which  religious  man  utters  because  he  feels  the 
necessity  of  voicing  what  lives  within  him,  are  numer- 
ous and  manifold.  Such  are  prayers,  from  childlike 
stammerings  to  the  solemn  litanies  of  the  most  highly 
developed  ritual  —  from  the  wordy  and  redundant 
prayers  of  those  who  seek  to  propitiate  their  god  by 
a  wealth  of  sounding  phrases  to  "  Our  Father,"  sub- 
lime in  its  simplicity  —  from  the  storming  of  heaven 
with  petitions  and  supplications,  from  which  not  a 
wish  or  want,  however  trivial,  is  omitted,  to  the  piteous 
cry  of  the  afflicted  sufferer,  the  exulting  song  of  the 
highly  blessed,  the  declaration  of  entire  self-dedication, 
of  calm  resignation,  of  perfect  conformity  of  will.  Such 
are  hymns  and  songs  of  praise,  some  of  them  an  em- 
bellished form  of  prayer,  others  a  form  of  confession, 
and  others  again  the  utterances  of  the  aspirations  of 


8  SCIENCE   OF  RELIGION. 

the  soul — from  the  monotonous,  wearisome,  and  usually 
plaintive  litanies  of  primitive  peoples  to  the  Vedic 
songs,  the  Homeric  hymns,  the  chants  in  honour  of 
the  chief  Egyptian  and  Assyrian  gods,  the  psalms  of 
Babylon  and  Israel,  the  profoundly  religious  poems 
of  Mohammedan  mysticism,  and  those,  no  less  deeply 
felt,  and  no  less  sublime,  in  which  Christians  of  all 
times  and  churches,  and  in  many  tongues,  have  poured 
forth  their  religious  feelings.  Such  are  the  epic 
narratives,  partly  borrowed  from  folk-lore,  and  partly 
original  compositions,  in  which  religious  thought  is 
embodied — myths  from  the  world  of  gods,  miraculous 
tales  of  the  golden  age  when  the  sons  of  heaven  still 
associated  on  almost  equal  terms  with  the  dwellers 
upon  earth,  a  mightier  and  happier  race  than  the 
present  —  legends  of  heroes  of  light  who  smote  the 
powers  of  darkness,  stories  of  saints  and  martyrs,  and 
lastly  the  history  of  the  golden  era  of  humanity  when 
the  champions  of  faith  wrestled  against  unbelief  and 
persecution,  when  religion,  after  its  profound  degrada- 
tion, revived,  and  when  the  light  of  a  higher  revelation 
of  the  divine  dispersed  the  dense  and  lowering  clouds 
—  not  a  history  scientifically  investigated  or  prag- 
matically recorded,  but  actuated  and  glorified  by  a 
spirit  of  pious  adoration,  and  transformed  into  an 
epic,  a  beautiful  idyl,  composed  by  the  deity  himself. 
And  such,  too,  are  confessions  of  faith  —  but  not  of 
course  those  which  are  merely  learned  and  repeated 


THE  MANIFESTATIONS  OF  RELIGION.  9 

by  rote — confessions  which  bear  witness  to  the  over- 
flowings of  the  heart ;  confessions  in  prophecies  and 
sermons ;  confessions  in  the  systems  of  great  religious 
thinkers  like  a  St  Augustine,  a  St  Thomas,  a  Wycliffe, 
a  Melanchthon,  or  a  Calvin,  systems  which  borrow 
their  form  from  philosophy,  and  seem  cold  and  life- 
less in  their  stern  logic,  but  which  are  nevertheless  the 
creations  of  a  profound  and  fervent  faith. 

jS'or  is  there  less  diversity  in  the  actions  in  which 
religion  is  manifested.  A  word  may  be  an  action:  a 
confession  of  the  truth  boldly  uttered  in  the  very  face 
of  the  powers  that  are  striving  to  crush  it,  a  summons 
to  resist  religious  persecution,  a  vow  that  binds  a  man 
throughout  his  whole  life.  But,  as  a  rule,  deeds  form 
a  more  vigorous  manifestation  of  faith  than  words. 
Those  who  confine  themselves  to  mere  words,  spoken 
or  written,  however  well  meant,  however  deeply  felt, 
cannot  be  regarded  as  thoroughly  in  earnest  unless 
they  seal  them  with  their  actions.  And  these  actions 
are  manifold.  They  do  not  consist  solely  in  the  ob- 
servances summed  up  in  the  term  Worship,  of  which 
we  naturally  think  in  the  first  place  —  that  is,  in 
communion  with  the  Deity  in  secret  or  in  public,  at 
set  times  or  whenever  the  heart  yearns  for  it,  a  com- 
munion which,  though  indispensable  to  the  mainten- 
ance of  religious  life,  cannot  of  itself  alone  be  called 
the  religious  life.  There  is  something  attractive  to  the 
religious   soul  in  every  religious   act,  provided  it  be 


l(t  SCIENCE  OF  RELIGION. 

earnest  and  sincere.  The  form  may  be  childlike, 
naive,  and  defective,  and  we  may  have  outgrown  it ; 
but  man  seeks  in  this  fashion  and  in  good  faith  to 
approach  his  God  ;  and  those  who  do  not  appreciate 
this  fact  place  the  form  above  the  substance.  Where 
all  the  arts  combine  to  render  the  ritual  impressive, 
as  in  the  cathedral,  which  of  itself  elevates  the 
thoughts,  where,  in  presence  of  the  devout  congrega- 
tion crowded  into  every  nook,  and  amid  majestic 
strains  of  music,  the  sacrifice  of  the  Mass  is  offered 
up,  even  the  Protestant  who  is  enlightened  enough 
to  respect  worship  in  every  form  feels  impressed,  if 
not  carried  away,  by  the  grandeur  of  the  spectacle. 
I  wish  I  could  adequately  interpret  for  you  a  beautiful 
description  of  the  Eomish  ritual  given  by  Jan  van 
Beers,  a  poet  of  the  Southern  Netherlands ;  but  it 
cannot  be  fully  appreciated  except  in  the  masterly 
verse  of  the  original.  He  declares  that,  although  he 
had  ceased  to  be  an  orthodox  Catholic,  the  foundations 
of  his  childhood's  faith  "  having  been  sapped  by  the 
waters  of  doubt,"  "he  felt  his  soul  overwhelmed  with 
a  holy  trembling,"  on  entering  the  imposing  temple 
to  which  his  mother  had  once  taken  him  as  a  child, 
and  where  "  she  had  taught  him  to  call  the  eternally 
Inscrutable,  whose  ineffable  name  the  whole  universe 
scarce  dares  to  stammer,  his  Father,"  It  seemed  to  him 
"  as  if  the  old  familiar  saints  with  their  golden  halos 
nodded  to  him  from  their  niches,  as  if  the  angels  once 


THE  MANIFESTATIONS  OF  IIELIGION.  11 

more  swayed  beneath  the  arches  to  the  music  of  harps 
and  celestial  songs,  as  if  the  whole  bright-winged  hosts 
of  the  dear  old  legends  he  had  once  so  eagerly  listened 
to  by  the  fireside,  long  forgotten,  suddenly  burst  into 
new  life  within  his  heart.  And  when  the  ^eat  organ 
lifted  its  melodious  voice  in  the  anthem,  and  "  the 
radiant  and  glittering  sun  "  of  the  sacrament  was  held 
on  high  by  the  priest,  and  the  countless  throng  of 
worshippers,  "from  the  choir -steps  down  to  the  dim 
twilight  of  the  aisles,  bowed  as  if  beneath  the  wind  of 
invisibly  wafting  wings,"  he  felt  himself  a  child  again, 
and  hoped  and  believed  as  a  child,  he  thought  of  his 
mother,  and  involuntarily  folding  his  hands  murmured, 
"  Our  Father ! "  Even  grander,  and  in  its  simplicity 
more  sublime,  was  the  worship  of  the  persecuted 
Huguenots,  who,  when  seeking  an  asylum  in  the 
wilds  of  the  Cevennes,  and  ever  threatened  by  the 
dragoons  of  Louis  XIV.,  met  in  that  temple  not  made 
with  hands,  in  order  that  the  inspiring  words  of  their 
preachers  and  the  artless  recitation  of  their  psalms 
might  brace  them  for  the  unequal  struggle.  And  yet, 
beautiful  as  is  such  adoration  in  spirit  and  in  truth, 
finding  utterance  in  manifold  ways,  its  utterance  in  the 
form  of  ritual  is  but  the  symbol  and  foreshadowing  of 
the  sacrifice  which  consists  in  so  entire  dedication  of 
self  to  the  Most  High  that  we  shall  live  in  Him  and 
He  in  us,  and  that  we  shall  be  able  to  say  with  Calvin, 
"  Cor   7nev.7n,    velut    madatum,   Domino   in   sacrificium 


12  SCIENCE  OF  RELIGION. 

offeror  In  short,  those  who  desire  to  learn  the  nature 
of  a  religion  from  the  conduct  of  its  votaries  must 
study  not  only  their  forms  of  worship,  but  all  the 
other  acts  prompted  by  their  faith. 

But  I  must  not  omit  to  answer  a  question  which 
arises  here.  How  many  words  have  been  and  are 
spoken,  how  many  deeds  done,  in  the  name  of  religion, 
which  are  objectionable  from  a  moral  point  of  view, 
and  even  arouse  our  intense  indignation  ?  I  do  not 
speak  of  hypocrisy,  which  uses  religion  as  a  means  of 
attaining  sordid  and  selfish  ends,  nor  of  the  thought- 
lessness which  prompts  people  to  utter  religious  words 
or  perform  religious  acts  without  considering  the  con- 
sequences, for  there  is  no  real  religion  in  either  case. 
But  I  allude  to  the  harsh  judgments  and  the  con- 
demnation pronounced  by  religious  persons  against 
those  who  differ  from  them,  to  the  blood  of  martyrs 
of  all  ages  and  peoples,  to  the  burning  of  heretics, 
to  the  so-called  sacred  synods  and  councils  which  have 
behaved  like  gangs  of  robbers,  and  to  the  so-called  holy 
wars  which  have  been  waged  with  greater  bitterness 
and  obstinacy  than  any  others.  Are  such  horrors  to 
be  regarded  as  manifestations  of  religion  ?  Unquestion- 
ably. But  they  also  indicate  a  morbid  condition  of 
the  religion  concerned.  They  prove  that  it  is  cramped 
by  the  fetters  of  particularism  and  pedantry,  that  it 
is  identified  with  an  effete  tradition,  that  it  is  con- 
taminated by  sordid  passions,  by  arrogance,  ambition. 


THE  MANIFESTATIONS  OF  RELIGION.  13 

and  hatred.    And  to  these  evils  is  added  the  confusion 
of  form  with  substance,  which  begets  the  notion  that    ^ 
our  own  form  of  religion,  that  of  our  fathers,  or  that 
of  our  people  or  our  church,  is  not  only  the  best  (as 
it  doubtless  is  for  us),  and  not  only  the  purest  of  all 
existing  religions  (which  is  quite  possible,  yet  without 
entitling  it  to  take  precedence  of  others  which  are  less     / 
mature,  but  not  necessarily  inferior),  but  the  only  true 
religion,  and  one  that  ought  to  be  adopted  by  the  whole 
world.      If  this  conviction  gives  birth  to  missionary 
enterprise  as  a  labour  of  love  and  compassion,  such 
enterprise,  if  rationally  and  prudently  conducted,  and 
not  merely  from  proselytising  motives,  may  be  fraught 
with  blessing.      But  when  these  motives  are  tainted 
with  the  passion  of  fanaticism,  or  clouded  by  the  blind- 
ness  of   selfishness,  crosses  begin  to  be    erected   and 
stakes   begin   to   blaze.      But   these    are   pathological 
phenomena,  too  often  unjustly  laid  to  the  charge  of 
religion   itself,  but  which  require  to  be  studied  and 
scientifically  explained   in    order  that  we   may  learn 
to  distinguish  what   is   sound   from  what   is  morbid. 
And  in  undertaking  this  task  the  philosophic  historian 
must   refrain   from   all   partisanship.      He   must    not 
assume  that  all  the  wickedness  of  hell  is  on  one  side, 
and  all  the  purity  of  heaven  on  the  other.     Even  when 
the  courage  of  martyrs  who  have  died  for  their  faith 
arouses  his  sympathy,  or  when  he  looks  up  reverently 
to  the  great  Sufferer  on  the  cross,  he  will  not  regard 


14  SCIENCE   OF  RELIGION. 

their  persecutors  as  utter  Hends.  For  these  persecutors 
were  men,  not  fiends — men  weak  and  ignorant  indeed, 
and  blinded  by  passion  and  selfishness,  yet  attached  to 
their  religion,  although  in  one  of  its  forms  only ;  while 
their  deeds  of  violence,  although  sadly  misapplied, 
revealed  that  striving  after  unity  which  we  have 
already  recognised  as  one  of  the  mightiest  factors  in 
religious  development.  The  holiest  never  ceases  to 
be  holy  although  it  is  abused  ;  and  it  is  the  duty  of 
the  scientific  inquirer  to  discover  it  even  when  marred 
and  obscured. 

Eeligion  therefore,  which  is  a  mental  condition, 
manifests  itself  in  all  kinds  of  words  and  deeds.  And 
let  me  say  once  for  all  that,  when  we  speak  of  religion 
pure  and  simple,  and  search  for  its  essence  and  origin, 
we  do  not  mean  that  kind  of  religion  which  is  adopted, 
without  inward  conviction,  as  a  necessary  appendage  of 
enlightened  education,  and  put  on  like  a  Sunday  gar- 
ment, but  solely  that  religion  which  lives  in  the  heart. 
And  we  have  already  pointed  out  its  component  parts 
— emotions,  conceptions,  and  sentiments. 

The  sequence  in  which  I  have  named  these  elements 
of  religion  is  not  an  arbitrary  one.  The  question  as  to 
their  order  of  precedence  has  been  much  debated. 
Some  trace  the  origin  of  religion  to  the  feelings,  others 
to  the  thoughts,  or  at  least  to  the  imagination,  while 
thought  and  imagination  are  both  traced  to  the  intel- 
lect; others  again  trace  it  to  the  will.      But  many. 


THE  MANIFESTATIONS  OF  RELIGION.  15 

despairing  of  reconciling  this  conflict  of  opinion,  have 
pronounced  the  whole  inquiry  to  be  futile,  and  have 
come  to  the  conclusion  that  it  is  impossible  to  lay  down 
any  fixed  rule.  I  do  not,  however,  regard  the  matter  as 
so  unimportant  or  so  liopeless.  I  am  satisfied  that  a 
careful  analysis  of  religious  phenomena  compels  us  to 
conclude  that  they  are  all  traceable  to  the  emotions — 
traceable  to  them,  I  say,  but  not  originating  in  them. 
Their  origin  lies  deeper,  and  we  shall  try  to  discover  it 
at  a  later  stage. 

Eeligion  always  begins  with  an  emotion.  Strictly 
speaking,  an  emotion  is  simply  the  result  of  something 
that  moves  us,  the  effect  of  some  external  agency.  But 
I  use  the  word  here  in  the  more  general  sense  in  which 
it  is  commonly  understood.  And  in  this  sense  every 
emotion  embraces  three  elements:  (1)  a  predisposition, 
in  the  form  of  certain  longings  or  aspirations,  as  yet 
partly  unconscious,  and  certain  latent  and  vague  con- 
ceptions, differing  according  to  the  temperament  and 
inclination  of  the  individual,  which  may  be  described 
as  a  mood ;  (2)  an  impression  produced  upon  us  from 
without,  or  the  affection  itself ;  and  (3)  the  fact  of  be- 
coming conscious  of  such  affection,  or  the  perception  of 
such  affection. 

In  the  case  of  the  great  majority  of  people,  religious 
emotions  are  awakened  by  the  representations  of  others, 
whether  heard  in  the  teaching  of  parents  or  masters,  of 
preachers  and  prophets,  or  contemplated  in  the  works  of 


16  SCIENCE   OF  RELIGION. 

artists,  or  learned  from  the  scriptures  which  we  have 
been  taught  from  childhood  to  regard  as  specially 
sacred,  or  from  other  sources.  But  in  the  case  of 
persons  whose  temperaments  are  religiously  predisposed 
by  nature,  the  emotion  is  aroused  not  only  mediately, 
as  above,  but  directly  also  by  the  events  they  witness 
in  the  world  around  them,  and  particularly  in  their 
own  history,  in  their  own  life,  and  in  the  destinies  of 
their  own  kith  and  kin,  their  family,  tribe,  or  people. 
Their  eyes  do  not  require  to  be  opened  to  the  contem- 
plation of  the  divine,  or  at  least  they  cannot  rest 
satisfied  with  the  views  of  it  handed  down  by  tradi- 
tion ;  but  they  discern  the  divine  where  it  has  as  yet 
been  undiscovered  by  others.  Or,  to  express  it  other- 
wise, and  perhaps  more  clearly,  things  that  fail  to  pro- 
duce any  religious  impression  upon  other  people  evoke 
it  in  them  because  they  are  more  religiously  disposed, 
y  For  it  depends  "solely  on  the  mood  or  mental  condition 
whether  the  things  that  a  man  hears,  contemplates,  or 
experiences — a  word,  a  conception,  an  impressive  natural 
phenomenon,  or  striking  incident — awaken  in  him  a 
religious  or  some  other  emotion.  Many  persons  may 
sit  at  the  feet  of  the  inspired  and  eloquent  preacher, 
and  many  may  hang  upon  his  lips,  but  few,  very  few,  of 
them  experience  a  religious  awakening.  Most  of  his 
cultured  hearers  will  merely  take  an  interest  in  his 
preaching  as  a  work  of  art.  The  thoughtful  will  pay 
special  attention  to  the  force  and  accuracy  of  his  argu- 


THE   MANIFESTATIONS   OF  RELIGION.  17 

ment.  Moralists,  who  value  religion  solely  as  a  means 
of  making  men  honest,  will  only  appreciate  him  if  his 
preaching  conduces  to  that  end.  Not  to  speak  of  the 
great  masses,  who,  though  not  actually  lulled  to  sleep, 
hear  the  sonorous  phrases  with  a  kind  of  dreamy  com- 
placency, without  grasping  their  real  meaning — how 
few  there  are  whose  inmost  souls  are  stirred,  and  who 
are  prompted  to  dedicate  themselves  and  their  lives  to 
(jrod  anew  !  Nor  is  the  case  different  when  the  emotion 
is  awakened,  not  mediately,  by  the  words  and  repre- 
sentations of  others,  but  directly  by  things  people  see 
and  feel  for  themselves.  This  requires  no  further  ex- 
planation. We  all  know  it  by  experience.  Think  for 
example  of  the  starry  vault  of  heaven.  All  who  use 
their  eyes  must  be  struck  with  its  beauty :  those  who 
have  learned  something  of  astronomy  must  marvel  at 
its  cosmic  system  and  infinity;  and  this  admiration 
will  often  give  rise  to  religious  emotion.  But  it  is  only 
the  religiously  disposed  who  will  discern  in  it  what  the 
poetic  eye  of  Euckert  saw  when  in  his  famous  sonnet 
he  compares  it  to  a  letter  written  by  God's  hand,  and 
sealed  with  the  sun,  but,  when  night  has  unsealed  it, 
showing  in  myriads  of  lines  a  single  mighty  hiero- 
glyph :— 

'"  Our  God  is  love,  a  love  which  cannot  lie,' 
No  more  than  this,  yet  this  is  so  profound, 
No  human  mind  can  fathom  or  explain." 

And,  as  was  the  case  with  the   poet,   the  emotion 
VOL.  II.  B 


p^ 


18  SCIENCE   OF  RELIGION. 

which  has  ripened  into  perception  in  the  religious  man 
is  speedily  and  spontaneously  transformed  into  a  con- 
ception. Let  it  not  be  thought  that  those  who  are 
struck  by  the  words  they  hear  or  read,  or  by  the  image 
they  contemplate,  merely  adopt  the  conceptions  of 
others,  and  that  the  conception  precedes  the  emotion. 
This  is  apparently,  but  not  really  the  case.  No  doubt 
it  is  a  conception  which  produces  an  impression  upon 
them,  but  it  is  only  when  the  conception  affects  them 
religiously  that  they  adopt  it  as  their  own.  But  every 
one  does  this  in  his  own  way ;  for  the  conception  which 
people  form  for  themselves  is  never  exactly  like  the 
one  which  has  given  rise  to  it,  and  of  which  it  is  only 
a  reflection.  And  it  never  can  be  thoroughly  appro- 
priated by  them  unless  born  of  a  genuine  religious 
emotion. 

And  next,  produced  by  such  a  conception  and 
awakened  by  emotion,  there  arises  a  definite  sentiment, 
the  direction  of  the  will  which  impels  to  action,  which 
makes  the  mouth  speak  out  of  the  abundance  of  the 
heart,  which  with  gentle  hand  diffuses  the  precious 
fragrance  of  grateful  love  and  veneration,  and  which, 
in  short,  will  not  allow  the  pious  to  rest  until  they  have 
sealed  it  by  word  and  deed. 

If  we  now  inquire  what  it  is  that  stamps  an  emotion, 
a  conception,  or  a  sentiment  as  religious,  and  what 
differentiates  it  from  an  aesthetic,  intellectual,  or  ethical 
impression,  we  may  answer  in  the  familiar  old  words, 


THE  MANIFESTATIONS  OF  RELIGION.  19 

"the  tree  is  known  by  its  fruits."  Words  sincerely 
uttered  and  deeds  spontaneously  performed  afford  the 
true  test.  Eeligious  emotions  may  indeed  be  so  weak 
and  transient,  and  conceptions  so  vague,  that  they  exert 
no  great  influence  upon  the  will,  and  are  therefore 
scarcely  perceptible  in  the  life  of  the  persons  concerned. 
But  if  the  emotion  is  vivid,  and  the  conception  distinct, 
they  cannot  fail  to  subdue  the  will  and  to  yield  good 
fruit.  And  the  fruit  is  different  from  that  yielded  by 
an  emotion  which  is  merely  admiration  for  what  is  out- 
wardly or  morally  beautiful,  or  for  the  sublime  and 
attractive  creations  of  poetic  imagination,  or  for  the  in- 
scrutable depth  and  infinity  of  the  universe  governed 
by  its  immutable  laws — an  admiration  which  incites 
the  philosophic  mind  to  reflection  and  impels  it  to 
search  for  the  origin  of  things,  in  order  to  found  a 
system  of  the  world.  But  in  the  sphere  of  religion  the 
emotion  consists  in  the  consciousness  that  we  are  in  the 
power  of  a  Being  whom  we  revere  as  the  highest,  and 
to  whom  we  feel  attracted  and  related ;  it  consists  in 
the  adoration  which  impels  us  to  dedicate  ourselves 
entirely  to  the  adored  object,  yet  also  to  .possess  it  and 
to  be  in  union  with  it. 

This  reminds  me  of  a  well-known  and  very  suggestive 
myth  which  is  admirably  calculated  to  illustrate  my 
argument.  I  mean  the  myth  of  Pygmalion,  which  was 
perhaps  borrowed  by  the  Greeks  from  the  Pha3nicians, 
but  was  certainly  recast  by  them  in  a  more  beautiful 


20  SCIENCE   OF  RELIGION. 

and  poetic  form.  You  all  know  the  story.  Pygmalion, 
the  sculptor,  has  chiselled  the  image  of  a  goddess  so 
beautiful  and  so  charming  that,  when  it  is  finished,  he 
falls  in  love  with  it.  And,  behold,  the  fervency  of  his 
love  gives  life  to  the  cold  marble,  and  the  goddess  be- 
comes his !  So  too  the  aspiration  after  the  divine 
awakes  in  the  mind  as  an  indefinite  longing ;  and  then, 
just  as  the  sculptor  embodies  his  idea  in  his  work  of 
art,  so  the  religious  mind  forms  a  conception  of  the 
deity,  corresponding  with  his  ideal ;  but  the  conception 
does  not  burst  into  actual  life,  the  believer  is  not  wholly 
possessed  and  swayed  by  it,  nor  does  he  attain  complete 
union  with  his  God,  until  he  worships  Him  in  adoring 
love. 

I  have  called  these  three  constituents  of  religion 
indispensable.  And  so  they  undoubtedly  are.  Where 
one  only  of  the  three  is  present,  or  when  one  of  the 
three  is  absent,  there  may  be  a  certain  religiosity,  but 
there  can  be  no  sound  and  perfect  religion.  And  this 
point  requires  to  be  emphasised,  because  the  contrary 
has  been  maintained  by  various  critics  from  dififerent 
points  of  view.  It  was  once  the  fashion,  though  we 
hear  less  of  it  nowadays,  to  look  down  with  contempt 
on  every  manifestation  of  faith,  and  not  even  to  take 
account  of  distinct  conceptions  and  definite  sentiments, 
but  to  attach  importance  solely  to  certain  vague  feelings 
and  longings,  as  if  they  contained  the  whole  pith  and 
essence  of  religion.     People  felt  specially  edified  by  the 


THE  MANIFESTATIONS  OF  RELIGION.  21 

verses  of  a  certain  poet — who,  as  a  poet,  holds  a  fore- 
most rank — who  in  the  midst  of  his  wildest  flights  has 
sung  of  the  immense  esp4rance  which  constrains  us  in 
spite  of  ourselves  to  raise  our  eyes  to  heaven  ;  and  even 
now  certain  young  poets  who  scribble  their  pious  con- 
fessions on  the  table  of  some  cafi,  under  the  inspiring 
influence  of  their  absinthe,  find  enthusiastic  admirers. 
I  do  not  despise  their  outpourings,  for  I  assume  them 
to  be  genuine.  I  rejoice  that  the  need  of  religion,  so 
long  obscured  by  prosaic  materialism,  is  again  beginning 
to  make  itself  felt.  This,  however,  is  but  the  glimmer- 
ing of  dawn ;  the  morning  has  yet  to  come ;  and  noon 
is  still  far  distant. 

I  am  not  sure  whether  any  one  maintains  that  the 
conception  we  form  of  the  deity  is  really  everything  in 
religion,  and  that  all  else  is  indifferent.  But  people 
certainly  often  act  as  if  they  thought  so.  Our  concep- 
tion of  God  and  of  our  relation  to  Him  is  very  far  from 
being  unimportant,  and  we  should  do  our  utmost  to 
purify  and  ennoble  it.  But,  however  poetically  beautiful 
or  philosophically  profound  it  may  be,  it  possesses  little 
religious  value  unless  it  proceeds  from  emotion  and 
gives  an  impulse  to  the  will. 

Lastly,  it  has  been  said,  and  it  is  still  maintained  by 
many,  that  everything  depends  on  sentiment.  Nor  do 
we  dispute  that  a  great  deal  depends  upon  it.  For  is 
it  not  the  blossom  of  which  the  fruit  is  the  offspring  ? 
But  was  there  ever  blossom  or  fruit  without  tree  or 


22  SCIENCE  OF  RELIGION. 

plant?  Surely  the  object  towards  which  one's  senti- 
ment is  directed,  whatever  be  the  conception  that 
sways  it,  is  far  from  being  unimportant.  Obedience, 
calm  submission,  perfect  dedication,  and  sincere  adora- 
tion are  all  genuine  religious  sentiments  ;  and  wherever 
they  occur,  there  religion  exists.  But  it  is  certainly 
not  a  matter  of  indifference  whether  the  believer  enter- 
tains such  sentiments  towards  a  benevolent  Vishnu  or 
towards  a  cruel  S'iva,  or  obeys  Melek  or  Ashtarte,  or 
adores  the  Yahve  of  Israel,  who  takes  no  pleasure  in 
human  sacrifices  and  is  of  purer  eyes  than  to  behold 
iniquity.  And  there  may  even  be  sentiment  of  a  very 
virtuous  and  exemplary  kind,  but  unless  it  is  deeply 
rooted  in  emotion  it  cannot  be  called  religious. 

There  are,  in  short,  three  essential  and  inseparable 
requisites  for  the  genuine  and  vigorous  growth  of 
religion :  emotion,  conception,  and  sentiment.  All  the 
morbid  symptoms  in  religious  life  are  probably  due  to 
the  narrow-mindedness  which  attaches  exclusive  value 
to  one  of  these,  or  neglects  one  of  the  three.  If  religion 
be  sought  in  emotion  alone,  there  is  imminent  danger  of 
its  degenerating  into  sentimental  or  mystical  fanati- 
cism. If  the  importance  of  conceptions  be  overrated, 
doctrine  is  very  apt  to  be  confounded  with  faith,  creed 
with  religion,  and  form  with  substance,  an  error  which 
inevitably  leads  to  the  sad  spectacle  of  religious  hate, 
ostracism,  and  persecution.  Those  again  who  take 
account  of  sentiment  alone  regard  every  act  done  in 


THE  MANIFESTATIONS   OF  RELIGION.  23 

the  name  of  religion,  however  cruel  and  inhuman,  as 
justifiable  on  the  ground  that  they  are  acts  of  faith 
(autos  dafi) — of  what  kind  of  faith,  they  do  not  inquire 
— while  others  would  care  nothing  if  religion  were 
entirely  swallowed  up  by  a  dreary  moralism. 

But,  important  as  it  is,  the  indissoluble  union  of 
these  three  elements  does  not  of  itself  ensure  the  com- 
pleteness of  religion.  They  must  also  be  in  equilibrium. 
In  this  respect  religion  differs  from  other  manifesta- 
tions of  the  human  mind.  In  the  domain  of  art  the 
feelings  and  the  imagination  predominate,  and  in  that 
of  philosophy  abstract  thought  is  paramount.  The 
main  object  of  science  is  to  know  accurately,  imagina- 
tion playing  but  a  subordinate  part ;  while  ethics  are 
chiefly  concerned  with  the  emotions  and  the  fruit  they 
yield.  In  religion,  on  the  other  hand,  all  these  factors 
operate  alike,  and  if  their  equilibrium  be  disturbed,  a 
morbid  condition  of  religion  is  the  result. 

And  why  is  this  ?  The  answer  is  to  be  found  in  the 
fact  already  pointed  out,  that  religion  constitutes  the 
deepest  foundation,  or  rather  the  very  centre,  of  our 
spiritual  life.  Or,  as  it  is  sometimes  expressed, 
"religion  embraces  the  whole  man."  If  this  means 
that  religion,  once  awakened  and  quickened  within  our 
souls,  sways  our  whole  lives,  nothing  can  be  more 
certain.  For  the  object  I  adore,  and  to  which  I  have 
dedicated  myself,  occupies  my  thoughts  and  governs 
my  actions.     But,  if  understood  too  literally,  the  ex- 


24  SCIENCE   OF  RELIGION. 

pression  would  hardly  be  accurate,  and  might  easily 
lead  to  fanaticism.  Human  life  has  other  and  perfectly 
justifiable  aspects  besides  the  religious.  Yet  one  thing 
is  certain,  religion  dwells  in  the  inmost  depths  of  our 
souls.  Of  all  that  we  possess  it  is  our  veriest  own. 
Our  religion  is  ourselves,  in  so  far  as  we  raise  ourselves 
above  the  finite  and  transient.  Hence  the  enormous 
power  it  confers  upon  its  interpreters  and  propliets,  a 
power  which  has  been  a  curse  when  abused  by  selfish- 
ness and  ambition,  but  a  blessing  when  guided  by  love 
— a  power  against  which  the  assaults  of  the  adversaries 
of  religion,  with  the  keenest  shafts  of  their  wit,  with 
all  their  learning  and  eloquence,  their  cunning  state- 
craft, and  their  cruel  violence,  are  in  the  long-run  un- 
availing and  impotent. 


25 


LECTUEE    II. 

GENESIS   AND   VALUE   OF   CONCEPTIONS   OF   FAITH. 

Every  living  religion  that  bears  fruit  in  human  life 
— that  is,  every  religion  rooted  in  faith — begins  with 
emotion,  whether  produced  by  teaching  and  preaching, 
or  by  our  own  contemplation  of  nature  around  us,  or 
by  our  wrestling  with  it  and  with  our  lot  in  life. 
Whatever  it  be  that  awakens  religious  life  within  us, 
whether  something  that  touches  us  directly,  or  the 
fruit  of  the  experience  of  others,  or  even  something 
that  has  been  transmitted  to  them  and  assimilated 
by  them  in  their  own  particular  way,  it  can  only 
possess  religious  efficacy  when  our  hearts  are  gen- 
uinely moved  by  it.  I  endeavoured  to  prove  this  in 
my  first  lecture.  And  I  have  already  warned  you, 
and  it  may  not  be  superfluous  to  reiterate  my  warn- 
ing, against  confounding  the  beginning  of  religion, 
which  is  merely  the  awakening  of  religious  conscious- 
ness, with  its  origin.  Its  origin  lies  more  deeply 
rooted  in  man's  nature.     Perceptions  can  but  awaken 


26  SCIENCE  OF  RELIGION. 

what  already  slumbers  within  us,  and  more  highly 
gifted  persons  may  voice  what  has  hitherto  lain 
inarticulate  and  even  unknown  to  us  in  our  hearts, 
but  they  cannot  give  us  anything  beyond  what  we 
already,  though  unconsciously,  possess.  They  may 
reveal  us  to  ourselves,  but  they  can  only  do  so  pro- 
vided we  are  religiously  predisposed.  In  others  they 
arouse  alarm,  dread,  surprise,  admiration,  or  even 
discontent,  aversion,  and  embitterment.  When  we 
speak  in  religious  language  of  the  soul  being  stirred, 
or  of  its  being  touched  by  divine  grace,  we  can  only 
do  so  because,  as  the  same  language  expresses  it, 
man  is  created  in  God's  image  and  has  affinity  with 
the  divine.  We  must  reserve  for  subsequent  con- 
sideration the  precise  nature  of  the  disposition  of 
mind  in  which  faith  manifests  itself,  whether  aroused 
by  the  impression  of  one's  own  experience  or  by  the 
professions  of  faith  made  by  others,  and  the  essential 
characteristics  of  that  faith.  Suffice  it  for  the  pre- 
sent to  determine  how  it  is  born  into  the  world. 

We  must  be  careful  to  avoid  the  not  uncommon 
error  of  confounding  faith  itself  with  the  conception 
of  faith,  although  indeed,  as  already  pointed  out,  the 
emotion  which  calls  it  into  life  immediately  trans- 
forms it  into  conceptions.  We  shall  to-day  consider 
the  nature  of  these  conceptions  in  general.  And  the 
first  question  that  arises  is,  How  are  conceptions  of 
faith  formed  ? 


VALUE   OF  GONGEPTIONS  OF  FAITH.  27 

The  well-known  answer  often  given  to  this  ques- 
tion, and  one  that  was  defended  at  length  by  Pro- 
fessor Eauwenhoff  a  few  years  ago  in  his  '  Philosophy 
of  Eeligion/  ^  is,  that  conceptions  of  faith  are  the 
product  of  imagination.  It  is  equally  well  known 
that  this  answer  has  been  repudiated  in  various 
quarters,  and  often  with  indignation,  as  such  a  doc- 
trine was  supposed  to  undermine  faith  itself  and 
banish  it  to  the  realms  of  fancy.  Nor  was  it  only 
the  supranaturalists  of  the  old  school  who  took 
offence  at  this  theory.  For  it  was  no  less  strongly 
objected  to  by  persons  who  were  of  opinion  that  a 
rational  religion  could  only  be  supported  by  rational 
reflection,  and  therefore  that  the  doctrine  of  belief,  to 
be  of  any  value,  must  be  formed  and  reformed, 
maintained  and  defended  by  reason.  To  say  that 
conceptions  of  faith  are  a  product  of  imagination 
seemed  to  the  austere  rationalist  tantamount  to  say- 
ing that  they  are  undemonstrated  and  undemonstrable 
nonsense. 

For  my  part,  it  has  rather  seemed  to  me  a  matter 
of  surprise  that  so  obvious  and  simple  a  truth  should 
require  any  defence.  It  is  just  as  axiomatic  as  the 
fact  that  we  see  with  our  eyes  and  hear  with  our 
ears,  with  this  qualification,  however,  which  I  must 
hasten  to  add,  that  we  could  neither  see  nor  hear  as 
we  do   unless  we  had  brains,  and  that  our  imagina- 

^  Wijsbegeerte  van  den  Godsdienst,  p.  611  seq. 


28  SCIENCE   OF  RELIGION. 

tion  acts  as  that  of  reasonable  beings.  And  this 
imagination  is  one  of  the  noblest  faculties  of  the 
human  mind.  Like  a  creative  artist  within  us,  it 
presents  us  with  living  pictures  of  what  we  ourselves 
have  never  beheld,  and  of  things  that  have  happened 
in  the  past  or  at  some  remote  distance;  it  encircles 
the  heads  of  those  we  love  and  revere  with  a  radiant 
halo  of  glory ;  it  builds  for  us  an  ideal  world  which 
consoles  us  for  all  the  miseries  and  infirmities  of 
actual  life,  and  for  the  realisation  of  which  we  can 
never  cease  to  strive.  Nay,  even  upon  our  mono- 
tonous everyday  life  it  sheds  a  poetic  glow.  But  is 
it  not  a  ^•ery  dangerous  faculty  ?  Would  it  not  be 
better  for  us,  as  practical  men  of  sense,  to  get  rid  of 
the  torments  of  this  lively  imagination,  and  thus 
escape  many  a  bitter  disappointment  ?  Or  would  it 
not  be  wiser  in  us,  simple  mortals,  to  refrain  from 
such  lofty  flights,  which  almost  invariably  result  in  a 
painful  fall  upon  the  hard  ground  of  reality  ?  Xo 
doubt,  if  left  to  itself,  and  unchecked  by  a  clear  in- 
tellect and  a  well-disposed  heart,  imagination  may  be 
a  very  dangerous  faculty,  and  may  lead  to  morbid 
fancies  and  even  to  fanaticism  and  madness.  No 
doubt  it  is  like  a  fiery  steed,  which,  unless  reined 
in  with  a  firm  and  practised  hand,  may  carry  its  rider 
he  knows  not  whither.  Yet  without  it  there  would 
be  nothing  left  for  us  but  to  crawl  on  the  earth 
and  eat  dust  like  the  serpent  in  the  garden  of  Eden. 


VALUE   OF  CONCEPTIONS   OF  FAITH.  29 

Let  us  therefore  distinctly  understand  what  imag- 
ination can,  and  what  it  cannot  do,  and  what  part  it 
takes  in   the   formation   of    our   religious  conceptions. 
It    creates    images    and    ideals,    but    it    borrows    the 
materials  for  these  from  reality,  from  observation  and 
recollection.     It  is  the  imagination  that  unites  into  a 
harmonious  whole  the  images  reflected  in  our  minds 
by  perception,  and  preserved  by  memory,  but  which, 
however  rich  and  manifold,  are  but  imperfect  repre- 
sentations   of    what    really    exists    in    the    world    of 
phenomena.      By   it   alone    the    historian   is   enabled, 
with  the  imperfect  data  at  his  command,  to  sketch 
a   picture  of   the   past  in  what   he  believes  to   have 
been  its  true  colours,  or   of    the   progress  of   human 
development.      By   it   alone   the   man    of    science    is 
enabled  to  form  an  idea  of  the  connection  of  pheno- 
mena and  the  laws  which  govern  them ;  with  its  aid 
alone  can  the  philosopher  construct  his  system.     With 
its  aid  also  the  religious  man  gives  concrete  shape  to 
the  faith  that  is  in  him  by  meanSof  the  image  of  an 
ideal    future   and   a    supernatural    and    divine   world. 
But  imagination  can  do  no  more.     It  can  only  create 
images  which  give  utterance  to  some  thought,  or  give 
vent   to   some   feeling.      If   it   does  not   do   this,  the 
images    are    but    the    vain    fancies    of    a    wandering 
brain,    and    mere    empty    dreams.      And    accordingly 
when   we   call    conceptions    of    faith   the   product   of 
imagination,  we  must  lay  special  stress  on  the  word 


30  SCIENCE   OF  RELIGION. 

conceptions,  as  being  the  forms  in  which  faith  reveals 
itself.  And  indeed  the  emotions  and  the  intellect 
contribute  just  as  much  to  the  conceptions  as  the 
imagination  which  forms  them.  Imagination  em- 
bodies religious  thought  and  religious  feeling,  but 
thought  and  feeling  are  the  essential  and  abiding 
elements.  And  therefore  as  soon  as  religious  thought 
is  deepened,  and  religious  feeling  purified — as  soon, 
in  short,  as  the  religious  man  is  developed — there 
arises  the  need  of  new  conceptions  to  express  more 
accurately  what  he  thinks  and  feels  in  his  higher 
stage  of  progress. 

Conceptions  of  faith  have  therefore  no  permanent 
and  absolute  value,  except,  as  I  shall  presently  point 
out,  to  a  limited  extent  only.  And  how  should  they  ? 
What  do  we  see  here  of  the  Eternal  except  an  un- 
certain reflected  image  ?  What  image,  however  lofty, 
however  sublime,  can  adequately  represent  the  In- 
finite ?  Even  St  Augustine  and  Thomas  Aquinas 
recognised  the  fact  that  we  can  only  approach  God 
in  spirit,  but  that  we  cannot  comprehend  Him.  And 
so,  too,  all  sensible  and  devout  people  must  be  con- 
vinced that  no  conception  of  God,  no  conception  of 
the  infinite  and  supernatural,  can  be  more  than  a 
feeble  attempt  to  picture  them  to  ourselves.  And 
hence  it  is  that  images  which  long  served  to  express 
the  faith  of  many  generations  are  superseded  by 
others   which   satisfy   new   needs.      We   may   admire 


VALUE   OF  CONCEPTIONS  OF  FAITH.  31 

the  poetry  and  appreciate  the  religious  thought 
expressed  in  the  Homeric  Zeus,  with  his  council 
of  Olympians,  or  in  the  God  of  Israel,  riding  upon 
the  Cherubim,  or  speaking  in  a  still  small  voice  after 
the  terrors  of  the  storm,  in  the  presence  of  His 
prophet,  who  reverentially  hides  his  face ;  but  these 
conceptions  no  longer  respond  to  our  religious  con- 
sciousness. We  hesitate  to  think  of  God,  who  is  a 
spirit,  as  being  visible  to  mortal  eye.  It  is  only  in 
parables,  or  in  the  wearers  of  His  image,  inspired  by 
His  spirit,  that  we  venture  to  figure  Him  to  our- 
selves in  human  form.  From  our  point  of  view, 
therefore,  the  picture  of  the  father  and  his  two  sons, 
the  penitent  whom  he  embraces  joyfully  and  enter- 
tains sumptuously,  and  the  jealous  elder  son,  whom 
he  seeks  to  appease  with  gentle  forbearance,  will 
ever  form  the  classic  expression  of  God's  all- 
embracing,    all -forgiving,   all -enduring   love. 

There  is  no  doubt,  however,  that  conceptions  of  faith 
possess  relative,  though  not  absolute  value.  The  re- 
ligious man  of  every  age,  and  of  every  stage  of  develop- 
ment, longs  for  something  more  than  vague  feelings  or 
abstract  philosophical  ideas.  He  desires  to  behold  his 
God,  if  not  with  his  bodily  eyes,  yet  with  his  mental 
vision.  And  this  is  proved  by  the  whole  history  of 
religion.  The  less  developed  religions  invoke  the  aid 
of  art  to  represent  their  gods,  whom  they  desire  to 
behold   and   to   keep   near   them.     Those,  again,  who 


yi 


32  SCIENCE   OF  RELIGION. 

deem  their  God  too  holy  to  be  represented  in  human 
form  are  fain  to  surround  Him  with  the  images  of  His 
elect  messengers  and  saints,  and,  above  all,  of  the  only 
Mediator.  Others  who,  from  dread  of  abuse  and 
idolatry,  have  refused  to  tolerate  even  this,  do  not 
disdain  the  use  of  symbols,  and  delight  in  pictures  and 
other  representations  of  sacred  legends.  And  accord- 
ingly, if  any  one  desires  to  awaken  religious  sentiment 
by  his  words,  let  him  refrain  from  abstractions,  con- 
ceptions, and  logical  demonstrations  ;  but  let  him 
rather,  as  a  poet,  or  prophet,  or  preacher,  strive  to 
make  his  hearers  behold  the  Divine  as  he  himself  has 
beheld  it. 

In  the  formation  of  conceptions  of  faith,  therefore, 
imagination  is  not  the  sole  agent.  All  it  does  or  can 
do  is  to  give  shape  in  our  minds  to  the  religious  sensa- 
tions we  experience,  and  to  the  thoughts  awakened  in 
us  by  these  sensations.  For  thought  contributes  no 
less  than  feeling  and  imagination  to  the  genesis  of 
conceptions.  It  even  precedes  their  operation.  With 
every  sensation  there  at  once  arises,  by  virtue  of  our 
innate  mental  norm  of  causality,  the  question.  Whence? 
And  in  religion,  as  well  as  in  philosophy,  this  is  really 
an  inquiry  as  to  the  deepest  foundations,  the  highest 
Cause  ;  and  the  invariable  answer  of  the  religious  soul 
is,  A  power  not  ourselves,  but  a  power  above  us,  on 
which  we  are  dependent,  and  with  which  we  are  yet 
related.     This  answer  is  not  the  result  of  long  and 


VALUE   OF  CONCEPTIONS  OF  FAITH.  33 

tleliberate  contemplation,  or  of  a  calm  and  logical  argu- 
ment, but  of  a  sudden  and  spontaneous  process  of 
reasoning  of  which  we  are  ourselves  unaware.  It  is 
only  then  that  we  form  an  idea  of  that  power,  an  idea 
more  or  less  in  accord  with  the  nature  of  our  first 
sensation.  Eeligious  conceptions  therefore  originate 
in  no  different  way  from  those  of  the  artist  or  the 
poet,  but  they  differ  from  them  in  one  important 
respect.  While  the  creations  of  art  completely  answer 
their  object  when  they  express  aesthetic  beauty,  though 
purely  ideal,  religious  conceptions,  on  the  other  hand, 
have  no  value  as  such  unless  supported  by  the  con- 
viction that  they  represent  something  real,  however 
imperfectly,  or  unless,  in  a  word,  they  are  the  expression 
of  faith. 

We  now  reach  the  vexed  question.  What  is  the 
relation  between  belief  and  knowledge  ?  Or,  to  limit 
it  to  the  special  subject  of  our  investigation.  What  is 
the  difference  between  the  conception  of  faith  and  the 
propositions  of  science  ?  The  chief  answers  usually 
given  to  this  question  are  well  known.  "  They  are 
diametrically  opposed,"  says  one  of  them ;  "  the  latter 
are  founded  on  exact  observation,  and  are  the  result  of 
clear  and  logical  reasoning ;  the  former,  scientifically 
speaking,  are  mere  guesses  about  things  unperceivable 
and  invisible,  and  are  therefore  just  as  uncertain  as  the 
others  are  well  founded.  Any  one  may  convince  a 
man  in  his  sound  and  sober  senses  of  a  scientific  truth 

VOL.  II.  C 


34  SCIENCE  OF  RELIGION. 

by  means  of  a   clear  demonstration,  but  nobody  can 
prove  the  truth  of  conceptions  of  faith  to  any  man  who 
does   not   already  possess  faith.     Knowledge  is  com- 
municable, faith  is  not."     "  Conceptions  of  faith,"  so 
runs    another    answer,   "  are   the    boundary  -  ideas   of 
science ;    they   form    the    necessary   complements    of 
human  knowledge,  which,  because  it  is  human,  can- 
not extend  beyond  what  is  perceivable."     And  further 
it  may  be  stated  generally,  without  mentioning  various 
other    answers   in   detail,   that   there    have    been    for 
ages  past,  and  that  there  still  are.  Christian  and  non- 
Christian  churches,  sects,  parties,  and  schools  which 
recognise  the  dicta  of  science  only  in  so  far  as  they  do 
not  conflict  with  their  own  conceptions  of  faith,  because 
they  believe  these  conceptions  to  be  founded  on  divine 
revelation,  or  at  least  to  be  irrefragable  convictions. 
We   shall   neither  defend   nor  impugn   any   of   these 
opinions    directly.      Apologetics    and    dogmatics    are 
foreign   to   our   subject.     We   consider   the   rights   of 
faith  to  be  just  as  well  established  as  those  of  science ; 
and  we  are  convinced  that,  when  they  come  into  colli- 
sion, it  is  because  one  or  other  of  them  has  overstepped 
the  boundary  between  their  respective  provinces.     We 
need  not  here  vindicate  the  rights  of  science,   while 
those  of  faith  will   be  better  vindicated  by  the  final 
results  of  our  investigation  than  by  any  long  argument. 
But  we  must  not  pass  over  in  silence  the  question  as 
to  the  mutual  relations  between  science  and  faith. 


VALUE   OF  CONCEPTIONS  OF  FAITH.  35 

And,  in  the  Hrst  place,  we  must  distinguish  between 
science  and  knowledge.  No  one  qualified  to  judge  will 
deny  that  such  a  distinction  exists.  Yet  the  two  things 
are  generally  confounded.  Knowledge  is  the  sole  and 
the  indispensable  material  with  which  science  works, 
but  it  is  not  itself  science.  Every  man  of  science  must 
be  learned,  and  the  more  he  knows,  or  rather  the  more 
thorough  his  knowledge  is,  the  better  ;  but  every 
learned  man  is  not  a  man  of  science.  The  latter  must 
not  only  possess  extensive  and  accurate  knowledge,  but 
he  must  be  capable  of  thinking  clearly.  Some  fifty 
years  ago  it  was  a  favourite  saying  that  "  knowledge  is 
power,"  which  has  doubtless  given  rise  to  the  modern 
system  of  overburdening  the  brains  of  our  school- 
children :  but  knowledQ;e,  like  wealth,  is  a  useless  and 
even  dangerous  power  in  the  hand  of  those  who  know 
not  how  to  wield  it  aright.  All  essential  knowledge  is 
acquired  by  observation  and  research,  and  it  is  com- 
municable to  all  who  possess  sound  sense  and  the 
capacity  to  follow  such  research.  In  other  words,  it 
is  demonstrable,  and  every  unprejudiced  person  must 
admit  the  validity  of  the  demonstration.  But  it  is 
obvious  that  the  knowledge  thus  acquired  is  of  a 
totally  different  kind  from  what,  in  religious  language, 
is  usually  termed  the  "  knowledge  of  God,"  which  is 
really  identical  with  faith.  In  a  certain  sense  it  may 
be  said  that  faith  also  rests  on  experience,  and  that 
it  is  awakened  by  what  we  see,  hear,  and  perceive ;  but 


36  SCIENCE   OF  RELIGION. 

the  experience  is  an  emotion  of  the  soul,  and  the 
religious  man  transfers  what  he  beholds  and  perceives 
to  a  sphere  which  eye  hath  not  seen  nor  ear  heard. 
All  conceptions  of  faith  are  inferences.  Acquired  by 
reflection  and  shaped  by  imagination,  they  cannot  be 
demonstrated  like  the  results  of  research,  or  imparted 
in  the  same  way  as  knowledge. 

Between  knowledge  and  faith  there  thus  exists  a 
difference  in  kind.  If  the  term  knowledge  be  applied 
solely  to  facts  ascertained  by  the  perception  of  the 
senses,  and  these  alone  be  called  truth,  faith  becomes 
a  very  uncertain  term,  and  can  lay  no  claim  to  the 
name  of  truth.  But  in  that  case  science,  too,  would 
have  to  renounce  all  claim  to  certainty.  And  so,  like- 
wise, would  many  of  the  most  cherished  convictions 
which  influence  our  actions  and  sway  a  great  part  of 
our  lives — I  allude  in  particular  to  confidence  in  the 
love  of  our  relations,  and  in  the  honesty  and  sincerity 
of  our  friends  and  fellow-workers,  and  no  less  to  our 
own  self-reliance,  both  of  which  are  ultimately  and 
necessarily  rooted  in  faith,  but  with  which  we  are  not 
now  immediately  concerned.  For  science — not  in  the 
limited  English  sense  of  the  term,  which  usually 
denotes  the  natural  sciences  only,  but  in  the  wider 
sense  now  generally  attached  to  it — science  is  not  a 
collection  or  encyclopaedic  summary  of  all  we  know 
about  a  given  subject,  but  is  a  philosophic  conviction 
founded  upon  what  we  know.     Science  is  not  attained 


VALUE   OF  CONCEPTIONS  OF  FAITH.  37 

by  mere  perception  —  which  is  indeed  as  much  sub- 
jective as  objective,  and  never  presents  reality  with 
absolute  precision — but  solely  by  means  of  reasoning 
from  acquired  knowledge,  and  by  means  of  hypotheses, 
destined  to  explain  the  mutual  connection  between 
ascertained  facts,  hypotheses  which  at  first  rise  to  the 
level  of  mere  probability,  but  which  by  the  discovery 
of  new  facts  may  be  established  as  laws.  This  applies 
also  to  the  so-called  exact  sciences,  with  the  single 
exception  of  mathematics,  which  is  concerned  with 
ideal  dimensions  and  proportions,  and  is  therefore 
purely  formal.  But  all  the  other  sciences,  and  in 
particular  the  historical  and  anthropological,  the  so- 
called  mental  sciences,  start  from  a  hypothesis  without 
which  we  are  unable  to  advance  a  step :  I  mean  that 
intuitive  belief  in  causal  relation  which  is  implanted 
in  us  by  nature,  a  belief  which  every  one  therefore 
takes  for  granted,  though  no  one  can  prove  it.  In 
other  words,  they  start  from  a  belief.  And  thus,  where 
we  are  concerned,  not  merely  with  ascertaining  facts, 
but  with  criticising,  explaining,  and  combining  them, 
so  as  to  build  them  up  into  a  probable  system,  the 
subjective  element  asserts  itself ;  mood,  taste,  opinion, 
and  temperament  play  a  foremost  part ;  and  a  good 
deal  must  be  left  to  intuition  and  aesthetic  sentiment. 

Between  faith,  which  strives,  on  the  basis  of  inward 
perception,  to  form  an  idea  of  what  lies  beyond  percep- 
tion, and  science,  which,  kept  within  its  proper  bounds, 


38  SCIENCE   OF  RELIGION. 

makes  the  perceptible  the  sole  object  of  its  research,  the 
opposition  is  not  so  absolute  as  is  commonly  supposed. 
If  anything  like  perfect  certainty  reigns  in  the  province 
of  science,  how  comes  it  that  fierce  conflicts  so  often 
arise  between  its  different  schools  and  parties  ?  Nor  is 
this  merely  the  case  when  stupid  and  ignorant  people 
are  set  to  rights  by  lucid  thinkers  and  sound  scholars ; 
for  we  often  see  the  most  distinguished  men  and  the 
highest  authorities  attacking  each  other  with  a  bitter- 
ness which  pales  the  fire  of  the  notorious  odimn  tlieo- 
logimm.  Science  and  faith  are  therefore  by  no  means 
opposed  to  each  other  in  the  same  way  as  certainty 
and  uncertainty.  Scientific  theories  and  conceptions 
of  faith  are  both  attempts  to  explain  what  we  perceive 
in  nature  and  in  mankind.  The  former  do  not  go  be- 
yond the  demonstration  of  the  finite  causes  and  the 
fixed  laws  which  govern  physical  and  mental  life.  The 
latter  ascend  to  one  or  more  supernatural  causes,  in 
which  everything  that  is  finite  has  its  origin.  And 
neither  these  theories  nor  these  conceptions  are  immut- 
able :  for,  with  the  advance  of  science,  the  development 
of  thought,  or  the  increase  of  moral  insight,  both  are 
liable  to  be  modified  or  even  entirely  superseded  by 
others.  Both  are  the  fruit  of  imagination  as  well  as  of 
reflection,  both  start  from  what  we  behold  and  ex- 
perience, but  one  aims  solely  at  explaining  the  world 
of  phenomena  from  within  itself,  while  the  other  sup- 
plements that  explanation  by  bearing  witness  to  the 


VALUE   OF  CONCEPTIONS  OF  FAITH.  39 

existence  of  a  higher  world,  whence  alone  the  visible 
world  can  be  understood.  To  the  man  of  science  the 
results  he  attains  appear  more  certain,  because  the 
phenomena  by  which  he  can  test  them  are  more  easily- 
controlled  ;  and  superficial  people,  who  are  blind  to  all 
that  is  not  perceptible  to  the  senses,  agree  with  him. 
But  the  religious  man,  though  well  aware  that  the  con- 
ceptions in  which  his  faith  are  expressed  form  but  a 
feeble  reflex  of  the  reality,  is  no  less  assured  of  the 
truth  of  that  faith,  and  his  assurance  is  justified  by  the 
instinctive  dictates  of  his  soul. 

Can  he  then  impart  this  assurance  to  others  ?  This 
is  what  many  doubt.  I  can  expound  a  scientific  theory 
so  clearly,  and  prove  so  plainly  that  it  accounts  for 
certain  facts  better  than  any  other,  that  every  one  who 
is  capable  of  following  my  exposition  without  bias  or 
prejudice  must  feel  compelled  to  assent  to  it.  This 
applies,  however,  solely  to  intellectual  conviction.  But 
in  order  to  get  others  to  assent  to  my  conceptions  of 
faith,  the  most  cogent  argument  will  be  fruitless  unless 
their  hearts  are  touched.  However  poetically  sublime 
a  conception  may  be,  however  profound  a  doctrine, 
however  masterly  and  logical  a  system,  while  we  may 
admire  it,  we  cannot  adopt  it  as  the  expression  of  our 
faith  so  long  as  our  faith  is  different.  There  is  indeed 
an  old  saying  which  rightly  declares  that  no  one  can 
give  us  faith.  Such  is  the  argument.  And  it  has  been 
so  often  repeated  that  it  has  become  a  commonplace. 


40  SCIENCE   OF  RELIGION. 

I  do  not  deny  that  there  is  some  truth  in  it.  But  it 
does  not  follow  that  it  is  absolutely  convincing,  or  that 
we  may  draw  the  conclusion  from  it  that  a  scientific 
theory  may  be  imparted  by  means  of  rational  demon- 
stration, while  a  conception  of  faith  is  incapable  of 
being  thus  imparted.  Let  us  examine  the  two  proposi- 
tions a  little  more  closely.  Are  they  so  very  different  ? 
We  cannot  make  others  participants  of  our  beliefs  if 
they  are  entirely  destitute  of  faith,  for  we  cannot  give 
them  faith.  But  neither  can  we  make  them  partici- 
pants of  our  scientific  conviction  if  they  lack  clear  in- 
telligence and  sound  judgment,  and  these  we  cannot 
give  them.  In  both  cases  there  is  a  condition  precedent 
to  be  fulfilled  before  our  demonstration  can  take  effect. 
In  both  cases  we  are  powerless  when  we  encounter 
stupidity  or  prejudice  or  unbelief.  Surely,  then,  it  is  a 
mistake  to  maintain  that  science  is  communicable,  and 
faith  is  not.  The  true  solution  of  the  difficulty  is,  in 
short,  to  be  found  in  the  fact,  which  no  one  will  dispute, 
that  science  and  faith  have  each  a  special  sphere  and  a 
peculiar  character,  and  that  they  must  therefore  be 
proclaimed  by  different  methods. 

How,  then,  can  we  impart  our  belief  to  others  ? 
Can  we  do  so  by  the  convincing  force  of  our  argument, 
or  by  the  strict  logic  of  our  demonstration  ?  Certainly 
not.  We  can  only  do  so  when  our  words  find  an  echo 
in  their  souls.  It  is  unreasonable  to  demand  that  we 
should  only  adopt  religious  opinions  after  having  care- 


VALUE   OF  CONCEPTIONS  OF  FAITH.  41 

fully  scrutinised  the  grounds  on  which  they  rest,  and 
after  having  convinced  ourselves  that  they  are  not 
opposed  to  reason.  How  few  there  are  who  are  in  a 
position  to  do  this !  Surely,  then,  it  is  contrary  to 
reason  to  insist  that  this  is  what  should  generally  be 
done.  Eeligious  feelings  are  usually  impressed  upon 
us,  at  a  time  of  life  when  we  are  as  yet  incapable  of 
such  scrutiny,  by  parents  and  teachers  whose  lessons 
interpret  the  prevailing  opinions  of  society,  of  the 
church,  and  of  the  traditions  of  previous  generations. 
If  we  fall  under  other  influences  at  a  subsequent 
period,  if  we  feel  that  what  we  learned  and  repeated  in 
our  youth  ceases  to  respond  to  the  religious  needs  of  a 
more  advanced  time  of  life,  we  can  then  form  concep- 
tions which  satisfy  these  better,  or  we  can  attach  our- 
selves to  some  school  of  thought  to  which  we  feel 
specially  attracted.  But  even  then  we  are  generally 
constrained  by  an  impulse  of  the  soul,  rather  than  by 
a  scrupulous  balancing  of  the  for  and  against  in  a 
rational  method.  Argument,  the  search  for  reasons  and 
proofs,  is  a  thing  that  comes  later,  when  we  are  called 
upon  to  account  to  others  for  our  religious  convictions, 
or  are  impelled  by  contradiction  to  justify  our  faith  to 
ourselves. 

In  his  chapter  entitled  "Authority  and  Eeason,"  one 
of  the  most  remarkable  in  his  work  on  the  '  Foundations 
of  Belief,'  already  cited,  Mr  A.  J.  Balfour  skilfully  and 
to  a  great  extent  triumphantly  refutes  the  view  which 


42  SCIENCE   OF  RELIGION. 

has  often  been  accepted  as  axiomatic,  that  "  Eeason, 
and  reason  only,  can  be  safely  permitted  to  mould  the 
convictions  of  mankind.  By  its  inward  counsels  alone 
should  beings  who  boast  that  they  are  rational  submit 
to  be  controlled."  And  he  combats  the  popular  preju- 
dice "  that  authority  serves  no  other  purpose  in  the 
economy  of  nature  than  to  supply  a  refuge  for  all  that 
is  most  bigoted  and  absurd."  He  adduces  various 
examples  to  show  that  this  is  largely  imagination,  and 
that,  in  so  general  a  sense  at  least,  it  is  contradicted  by 
the  actual  facts.  At  the  close  of  his  comprehensive 
argument  he  determines  the  relative  positions  of  Rea- 
son and  Authority  in  the  formation  of  belief.  He 
recognises  the  fact  that  to  Eeason  is  largely  due  the 
growth  and  sifting  of  our  knowledge  and  the  systema- 
tising  of  the  conclusions  of  our  learning  ;  that  to  Eea- 
son we  are  in  some  measure  beholden  for  aid  in  manag- 
ing our  personal  affairs,  in  so  far  as  they  are  not  already 
controlled  by  habit ;  and  lastly,  that  Eeason  also  directs 
or  misdirects  the  public  policy  of  communities  within 
the  narrow  limits  permitted  by  custom  and  tradition. 
Whatever  other  influence  it  exerts  is  indirect  and 
unconscious.  But  all  these  operations  of  Eeason  are 
trifling  compared  with  the  all-pervading  influences  of 
Authority,  which  at  every  moment  of  our  lives  moulds 
our  feelings,  aspirations,  and  beliefs,  whether  as  indivi- 
duals or  as  members  of  society.  And  this,  according 
to  the  view  of  this  acute  thinker,  is  very  fortunate. 


VALUE   OF  CONCEPTIONS  OF  FAITH.  43 

For  reason  is  a  power  which  divides  and  disintegrates, 
and  there  is  much  more  need  of  "  forces  which  bind 
and  stiffen,  without  which  there  would  be  no  society 
to  develop."  And  although  he  admits  that  Authority 
has  often  perpetuated  error  and  retarded  progress, 
Keason  has  not  always  been  productive  of  unmixed 
good.  We  owe  to  Authority  rather  than  to  Eeason 
our  ethics,  our  politics,  and  above  all  our  religion. 
Upon  Authority  depend  the  elements  of  our  science 
and  the  foundations  of  our  social  life,  and  by  Authority 
the  superstructure  of  society  is  cemented.  "  And 
though  it  may  seem  to  savour  of  paradox,"  he  con- 
cludes, "  it  is  yet  no  exaggeration  to  say,  that  if  we 
would  find  the  quality  in  which  we  most  notably  excel 
the  brute  creation,  we  should  look  for  it,  not  so  much 
in  our  faculty  of  convincing  and  being  convinced  by 
the  exercise  of  reasoning,  as  in  our  capacity  for  influen- 
cing and  being  influenced  by  the  action  of  Authority." 

If  we  were  disposed  to  banter,  we  might  say  that 
such  a  philosophy  was  of  course  to  be  expected  of  a 
statesman  clothed  with  authority  and  a  member  of 
the  Government,  but  that  we  should  probably  hear  a 
totally  different  opinion  if  the  speaker  were  sitting  on 
the  benches  of  the  Opposition. 

But  it  is  with  the  philosopher  alone,  and  not  with 
the  statesman,  that  we  have  to  deal.  And  there  is 
indeed  so  much  truth  in  his  reasoninsj  that  we  are 
•much  more  inclined  to  agree  than    to   disagree  with 


44  SCIENCE  OF  RELIGION. 

him.  For  it  would  be  of  little  use  to  maintain  that 
authority  has  so  much  more  influence  over  us,  par- 
ticularly in  social  life  and  in  religion,  only  because 
humanity  in  general  is  so  backward  in  rational  in- 
sight, and  that  it  is  only  the  elite  who  are  guided  by 
Eeason,  while  the  mass  of  mankind  is  impervious  to 
its  persuasion.  And  it  w^ould  be  a  mere  trifling  with 
words  to  say  that  Eeason  also  is  in  its  way  a  kind 
of  authority  from  which,  when  it  is  once  brought 
home  to  us,  we  cannot  escape.  But  we  cannot  accept 
the  proposition  of  the  learned  author  without  reserve, 
or  at  least  further  explanation.  What  is  here  meant 
by  Eeason,  and  what  by  Authority?  Is  reason 
merely  the  faculty  of  arguing,  criticising,  and  sifting 
with  full  consciousness  ?  If  so,  we  certainly  are  not 
indebted  to  it  for  our  religion  or  even  for  our  concep- 
tions of  faith.  But  reason,  which  indeed  also  acts 
within  us  unconsciously,  embraces  far  more  than 
the  purely  intellectual  faculty  of  criticising  and  com- 
bining, which  to  a  less  extent  belongs  to  the  lower 
animals  also,  and  enables  them  to  understand  our 
commands.  It  is  the  faculty  which  differentiates  the 
self-conscious  human  spirit  from  the  intelligence  of  the 
lower  animals,  and  enables  him  to  form  abstract  ideas, 
to  ascend  from  the  particular  to  the  general,  and  to  in- 
vestigate the  cause  and  effect,  the  origin  and  destiny  of 
things.  And  probably  no  one  will  dispute  that  it  is  pre- 
cisely to  this  category  that  religious  conceptions  belong. 


VALUE  OF  CONCEPTIONS  OF  FAITH.  45 

And  what  is  Authority  ?  The  meaning  of  the 
term  is  certainly  not  invariable.  There  is  a  usurped 
authority  which  can  only  be  maintained  by  force 
and  fear.  Some  submit  to  it  from  ambitious  motives, 
or  because  they  think  it  to  their  advantage.  But 
most  people  obey  it  unwillingly,  and  under  compul- 
sion alone,  and  throw  it  off  as  a  burdensome  yoke  as 
soon  as  they  see  a  chance  of  success.  And  it  matters 
little  whether  the  authority  is  wielded  by  the  powers 
above  us,  by  the  State  or  the  priesthood,  or  by  some 
domestic  tyrant,  or  perhaps  by  our  equals  or  inferiors 
who  try  to  force  their  ideas  and  prejudices  upon  us 
by  the  sheer  force  of  numerical  majority.  To  bow 
before  such  authority  is  degrading  to  every  rational 
being.  It  begets  hypocrites  and  infidels.  And  a 
faith  which  has  no  other  foundation  is  undeserving 
of  the  name.  And  there  is  also  a  deceptive  authority 
exercised  by  plausible  sophists  and  demagogues, 
whether  blind  leaders  of  the  blind,  or  persons  who 
know  better,  but  are  actuated  solely  by  mercenary 
motives  or  ambition.  We  must  therefore  make  sure, 
when  we  are  urged  to  reverence  authority,  that  it  is 
a  legitimate  authority.  The  only  legitimate  authority 
is  that  of  our  mental  or  moral  superiors,  gifted  ex- 
perts in  science  or  art,  profound  thinkers,  men  or 
women  of  character  and  weight,  sages  and  saints. 
Their  authority  is  legitimate,  for  it  is  founded  upon 
their  actual  superiority.      It  does    not   require  to  be 


46  SCIENCE   OF  RELIGION. 

maintained  by  force  or  fear.  Those  who  are  modest 
and  not  entirely  devoid  of  self-knowledge  submit  to 
it  willingly,  not  with  the  passive  obedience  of  slaves, 
or  with  blind  reverence,  or  with  thoughtless  imitation, 
but  because  they  feel  that  it  opens  their  eyes  to  a 
clearer  light  and  rouses  their  souls  to  higher  enthusi- 
asm ;  or,  to  use  Mr  Balfour's  language,  because  they 
find  themselves  brought  into  a  mental  state  which 
gives  them  greater  peace,  into  a  spiritual  atmosphere 
where  they  breathe  more  freely.  Be  it  noted,  then, 
that  personal  influence  and  superiority,  even  in  the 
province  of  science,  to  a  greater  extent  than  people 
think,  but  chiefly  in  that  of  religion,  are  the  most 
powerful  levers.  We  cannot  impart  our  belief  to 
others  by  cold  reasoning ;  we  can  only  win  them 
over  and  carry  them  away  by  the  fire  and  fervency 
of  our  conviction.  And  in  adopting  that  belief  they 
usually  accept  along  with  it  the  conceptions  in  which 
it  is  conveyed,  as  being  its  most  appropriate  embodi- 
ment. It  is  therefore  undoubted  that,  like  so  many 
other  elements  in  our  intellectual,  moral,  and  emo- 
tional life,  our  religion  and  faith  also  largely  rest 
upon  authority,  or  at  least  emanate  from  authority, 
the  authority  of  tradition,  instruction,  and  personal 
superiority.  But  it  is  no  less  true  that  such  a  faith 
is  valueless,  and  that  such  a  religion  lacks  vitality, 
unless  they  have  found  in  our  souls  an  echo  of  which 
our  minds  bear  witness.     For  the  only  true  and  legiti- 


VALUE   OF  CONCEPTIONS  OF  FAITH.  47 

mate  authority  is  not  that  of  arguments,  which  are 
often  deceptive,  nor  that  of  man's  individual  reason, 
but  solely  that  of  truth,  a  heritage  handed  down  to 
us  by  our  ancestors,  a  light  kindled  by  the  most 
gifted  of  our  contemporaries,  awakening  whatever 
truth  has  been  slumbering  within  us  —  a  process, 
whether  we  call  it  insight,  or  feeling,  or  conscience, 
which  is  ultimately  nothing  but  the  authority  of 
Eeason,  or,  to  use  a  religious  expression,  the  authority 
of  the  divine  spirit  within  us. 

In  conclusion,  those  who  entertain  religious  con- 
victions hold  them  no  less  firmly  than  those  who  have 
scientific  convictions.  To  impart  them  to  others  is 
not  more  difficult,  and  in  some  respects  is  even  easier, 
than  to  induce  them  to  accept  scientific  propositions. 
But  there  is  a  difference.  We  cannot  possibly  define 
faith  by  means  of  dry  mathematical  formulas,  or 
symmetrical  syllogisms,  or  cold  abstractions  of  meta- 
physics, without  committing  moral  suicide.  Faith  can 
only  embody  in  images,  in  symbols  and  allegories, 
in  legends  and  parables,  its  bold  aspirations,  and  its 
speculations  soaring  above  the  finite  and  transient. 
Not  because  it  stands  on  a  lower  platform  than 
science,  but  because  it  has  a  higher  aim.  It  must 
make  shift  to  express  itself  in  a  language  which  is 
too  poor  to  express  everything.  It  is,  so  to  speak,  a 
king  in  exile,  a  son  of  God  in  human  form.  Those 
therefore  who,  in  order  to  prove  that  it  does  not  con- 


48  SCIENCE   OF  RELIGION. 

flict  with  common  -  sense,  seek  to  bind  it  down  to 
commonplace,  everyday  morality,  and  thus  rob  it  of 
all  beauty  and  fragrance,  render  just  as  poor  a  ser- 
vice to  religion  as  those  who  maintain  that  the  dog- 
matic, in  which  they  sum  it  up  for  their  own 
convenience  or  that  of  their  generation,  is  itself  the 
eternal  and  immutable  truth.  Schopenhauer,  whom 
we  may  admire  for  many  excellent  and  true  sayings, 
without  adopting  his  pessimism,  pointed  out  long  ago 
that  it  is  a  common  mistake  of  Supranaturalists  and 
Eationalists  to  seek  for  pure,  literal,  and  unveiled 
truth  in  religion.  "  This,  however,  is  to  be  sought  for 
in  philosophy  alone  ;  religion  " — or  as  I  should  rather 
say,  religious  conception — "  only  possesses  an  indirect, 
emblematic,  allegorical  truth."  "Eationalists  are 
worthy  people,  but  dull  fellows ; "  "  Those  who  try  to 
find  the  plain  and  naked  truth,  either  in  the  domain 
of  history,  or  in  that  of  dogma,  are  the  euhemer- 
ists  of  our  time."  The  supranaturalists  do  not  per- 
ceive that  their  doctrine  is  but  the  husk  of  profound 
and  weighty  truth  which  cannot  be  rendered  intelli- 
gible to  the  great  majority  of  people  in  any  other 
way.  "But  religion  is  well  adapted  to  satisfy  the 
indelible  metaphysical  requirements  of  mankind,  and 
with  most  people  forms  a  substitute  for  pure  philo- 
sophic truth,  which  is  difficult  and  perhaps  impossible 
of  attainment." 

I  can  only  accept  this  last  utterance  of  the  philos- 


VALUE   OF  CONCEPTIONS  OF  FAITH.  49 

opher  with  some  reserve.  But  this  brings  us  to  the 
important  question  of  the  relation  between  religion 
and  philosophy,  or  rather  between  the  doctrine  of 
faith  and  philosophy,  a  question  too  extensive  and 
weighty  to  be  disposed  of  without  due  deliberation. 
We  shall  therefore  proceed  to  consider  it  in  our  next 
lecture. 


VOL.  II. 


50 


LECTUEE    III. 

PHILOSOPHY   AND    RELIGIOUS   DOCTRINE. 

We  now  reach  the  important  question,  What  is  the 
relation  of  religion  to  philosophy  ?  Or,  to  put  it  more 
precisely,  what  is  the  relation  between  the  doctrine  of 
faith,  as  the  summary  of  all  religious  conceptions,  or 
the  theory  of  religious  life,  and  that  science  of  sciences 
which  strives  to  weld  the  results  of  all  investigation 
into  a  harmonious  whole,  with  a  view  to  penetrate  to 
the  root  of  all  things,  to  the  ^:)?'i7icz)9?^r/  rcriim  ?-  It  has 
always  been  felt  that,  though  often  in  conflict,  the 
doctrine  of  faith  and  that  science  of  sciences  are 
closely  related.  For  both  seek  unity  in  multiplicity 
and  diversity.  Both  "  are  concerned  specially  and 
primarily  with  that  monistic  side  of  the  cosmos  which 
underlies  all  the  divisions  which  separate  finite  indi- 
viduals from  each  other."  ^  Are  they  rivals  which 
cannot  exist  side  by  side,  and  which  therefore  naturally 

^  C.  B.  Upton,  Lectures  on  the  Basis  of  Religious  Belief  ;  Hibbert 
Lectures,  1893,  p.  17. 


PHILOSOPHY  AND  RELIGIOUS  DOCTRINE.        51 

strive  to  supplant  each  other  ?  Or  are  they  truly  one 
and  the  same  thing,  but  merely  in  different  shape,  in  a 
lower  and  higher,  a  less  and  a  more  highly  developed 
form,  one  of  which  is  destined  ultimately  to  resolve 
itself  into  the  other  ?  Has  the  one  arisen  out  of  the 
other,  or  has  each  a  distinct  origin  and  a  special  aim  ? 
Such  are  the  questions  which  we  must  now  try  to 
answer. 

There  are  three  possible  solutions,  each  of  which  has 
its  advocates.  We  may  regard  philosophy,  or  at  least  its 
theosophic  part,  as  merely  a  more  precise  and  scientific 
form  of  religious  doctrine.  Philosophy  would  then 
have  sprung  from  religion,  and  would  be  destined  to 
satisfy  those  who  are  more  intellectually  developed, 
and  who  desire  definite  declarations  instead  of  the 
parables  and  allegories  in  which  the  conceptions  of 
faith  are  usually  clothed.  It  would  then  have 
gradually  severed  itself  from  faith,  it  would  have 
lost  its  distinctively  religious  character,  and  would 
at  last  have  entered  upon  an  independent  course  of 
development. 

Conversely,  philosophy  may  have  been  the  parent, 
and  religious  doctrine  the  offspring.  In  this  case  the 
latter  would  be  regarded  as  a  popular  philosophy, 
rendered  accessible  to  the  many,  by  means  of  which 
religion  would  strive  to  build  its  practical  system  on  a 
theoretical  foundation.  And  in  point  of  fact,  there  is 
an  influential  school  of  theologians  which  maintains 


52  SCIENCE   OF  RELIGION. 

something  of  the  kind.  According  to  them  religion  is 
purely  practical,  and  its  essential  is  worship.  The  sole 
question  that  concerns  the  religious  man  is,  What 
must  I  do  to  be  saved  ?  This  is  the  instruction  he 
desires  to  obtain.  But  all  speculations  as  to  the  being 
and  attributes  of  God,  His  relation  to  the  external 
world,  the  origin  and  future  of  that  world  and 
humanity,  and  everything  connected  with  these 
themes,  belong  to  philosophy.  The  pious  man,  as 
such,  does  not  puzzle  his  brains  with  such  questions. 
And  if  theologians  feel  the  necessity  of  rounding  off" 
their  system  of  religion  with  them,  they  must  borrow 
them  from  philosophy. 

A  third  possible  solution  is,  that  religious  doctrine 
and  philosophy,  though  closely  related,  have  originated 
independently,  have  developed  separately,  and  have 
entirely  different  objects  in  view.  And  this  solution 
also  has  its  champions. 

We  cannot  entirely  concur  in  any  of  these  proposed 
solutions.  Each  contains  an  element  of  truth,  and  the 
last  is  probably  nearest  the  truth.  Each  suffices  to 
account  for  certain  phenomena,  but  not  one  of  them 
can  satisfactorily  account  for  all  the  phenomena.  We 
must,  therefore,  strike  out  a  new  path  for  ourselves. 
And  with  this  object  in  view,  we  must  explain  at  the 
outset  that  we  are  speaking  of  philosophy  and  religious 
doctrine  in  the  widest  sense.  We  do  not  mean  philo- 
sophy solely  as  it  shows  itself  in  the  mystic  specula- 


PHILOSOPHY  AND  RELIGIOUS  DOCTRINE.        53 

tions  of  the  Indians,  or  in  the  more  rational  and 
logical,  though  still  partly  fantastic,  systems  of  ancient 
Greece,  where  philosophy,  as  we  now  understand  and 
employ  the  term,  first  saw  the  light.  Nor  do  we  speak 
of  religious  doctrine  merely  as  that  form  which  has 
been  reduced  to  a  more  or  less  scientific  system  by  the 
schools  of  Christian  theology,  a  dogmatic  system  which, 
indeed,  in  so  far  as  it  is  in  touch  with  philosophy,  is 
rooted  in  the  philosophy  of  Greece.  But  we  include 
all  speculations  as  to  the  ultimate  source  of  the 
universe,  even  in  their  most  primitive  forms,  figured  by 
means  of  images,  myths,  symbols,  and  the  like  creations 
of  the  imagination,  forms  of  thought  necessary  to  man 
in  his  infancy ;  and  we  attach  even  more  importance 
to  these  than  to  the  abstract  conceptions  demanded  by 
a  more  mature  stage  of  development.  Every  man  in 
his  sound  senses,  who  does  not  lead  the  life  of  a  half- 
dormant  animal,  philosophises  in  his  way ;  and  in  all 
ages  and  among  all  peoples  there  have  been  men  who 
felt  the  necessity  of  reflection  more  than  their  fellows, 
and  who  became  the  sages  and  the  spiritual  leaders  of 
the  generation.  The  Polynesian,  surrounded  by  the 
ocean,  asks  himself  how  his  island,  Jiis  world,  sprang 
out  of  the  bosom  of  the  deep ;  the  Hottentot  and  the 
Kaffir  marvel  that  the  moon-god,  their  great-grand- 
father, although  at  times  lost  to  sight,  ever  revives, 
while  his  children  must  die ;  the  Eed  Indian  seeks  for 
the  origin  of  the  world  and  humanity  in  the  fertilisa- 


54  SCIENCE   OF  RELIGIOX. 

tion  of  the  waters,  which  contain  the  germs  of  all  life, 
by  means  of  the  mighty  breath  of  the  great  creating 
Spirit, — and  they  are  all  philosophers  and  theologians 
in  their  way.  There  is  not  a  single  system  of  myth- 
ology, even  among  the  most  barbarous  peoples,  that 
does  not  possess  its  legend  of  the  Creation,  and  thus 
endeavours  to  account  for  the  origin  of  the  universe. 
However  childish  the  legend,  however  limited  its 
universe,  however  destitute  of  poetry  its  form,  it  is  by 
no  means  far  removed  from  the  beginnings  of  Greek 
philosophy  in  the  time  of  Thales  of  Miletus ;  and 
though  but  a  crude  outline  compared  with  the  systems 
of  Plato  or  Hegel,  it  does  not  differ  from  them  in  kind. 
And  when  we  consult  the  most  ancient  literature  we 
possess,  we  find  that  the  Egyptians  and  Babylonians, 
the  Chinese,  the  Indians,  and  the  Persians,  not  to 
speak  of  the  Greeks  and  the  Eomans,  had  their  complete 
cosmogony  and  anthropogony,  and  some  more  or  less 
vague  conceptions  as  to  the  universe,  tlie  genesis,  the 
connection,  and  the  destiny  of  things,  and  the  nature 
of  man.  These  peoples  had  advanced  beyond  the 
infantile  or  rudimentary  stage.  Who  does  not  know 
the  often- quoted  hymn  in  the  tenth  book  of  the  Egveda 
(129),  which  refers  to  the  time  when  there  was  as  yet 
neither  existence  nor  non-existence,  neither  Death  nor 
Immortality,  neither  air  nor  heavens,  and  when  the 
One  breathless  breathed  within  itself,  until  the  creative 
desire  awoke  in  it  and  manifested  the  first  germs  of 


PHILOSOPHY  AND  RELIGIOUS  DOCTRINE.        55 

spirit  i  Scarcely  less  familiar  is  the  Babylonian 
cosmogony,  which  has  indeed  retained  more  of  the 
mythical  form,  but  which  also  reaches  back  to  the 
time  when  "  the  Heaven  was  yet  unnamed,  and  the 
Earth  beneath  had  no  name,  but  the  waters  of  the 
two  oceans,  the  heavenly  and  the  earthly,  were  as 
yet  mingled."  Even  the  pious  Iranian,  though  more 
inclined  to  study  the  practical  side  of  life  than  to 
immerse  himself  in  profound  speculations,  entreats 
Mazda  Ahura  to  tell  him,i  "Who  is  the  first  author, 
the  father  of  Eight  (asJia)  ?  Who  created  the  path  for 
the  sun  and  the  stars  ?  Who  makes  the  moon  wax 
and  wane  ?  From  thee,  0  Mazda,  I  long  to  learn  this 
and  much  besides  ! " 

"  Who  keeps  the  earth  and  the  clouds  above  from 
falling  ?  Who  created  the  waters  and  the  trees  ?  Who 
has  given  swiftness  to  the  wind  and  the  thunder-cloud  ? 
Who,  0  Mazda,  is  the  creator  of  the  human  race  (  VoJm 
Mano)  ? "  ^  "  What  artificer  has  created  light  and 
darkness  ?  What  artificer  has  created  sleep  and 
awakening?  Who  has  made  morning,  noon,  and 
night  ?  What  leads  the  mind  of  him  who  cares  for 
that  which  is  right  ?  "  ^ 

I  quite  admit  that  these  are  the  merest  beginnings 
of   philosophy,   half-mythical,  half-dogmatical  concep- 

^  Gatha  ushtavaiti,  Yasn.  44,  3  seq. 

2  I  think  Vohu  Mano,  the  good  mind,  here  signifies  the  human  race. 
^  The  last  line  is  obscure,  and  the   translation  can  only  be  con- 
jectured. 


56  SCIENCE   OF  RELIGION. 

tions,  which  are  not  yet  reduced  to  the  unity  of 
a  symmetrical  system  of  philosophy  or  of  religious 
doctrine.  This  process  comes  later.  The  need  of 
satisfying  ourselves  as  to  the  foundations  on  which 
our  convictions  and  our  religious  belief  rest,  and  of 
harmonising  our  views  of  the  world  and  of  life,  pre- 
supposes a  maturity  of  reflection  which  requires  a 
long  previous  course  of  training.  Yet  each  has  his 
own  system,  although  it  be  unconscious.  For  in  every 
stage  of  development  people  are  dominated  by  a  single 
root-idea,  whence  all  special  conceptions  take  their 
rise.  It  was  such  a  system  that  we  named  polyzoism 
in  its  religious  aspect,  and  hylozoism  on  its  philo- 
sophical side — namely,  the  conception  that  all  life  is 
caused  by  a  multiplicity  of  spirits  dwelling  in  matter. 
Such  a  system,  too,  was  Animism  or  Spiritism,  the 
belief  that  spirits  can  move  independently  and  choose 
their  dwelling  in  objects  of  every  kind,  and  display 
their  power  in  all  sorts  of  natural  phenomena  and 
human  emotions.  Systems  they  are,  though  unwritten, 
and  neither  taught  by  schools  or  universities,  nor 
inculcated  by  churches,  but  which,  no  less  than  the 
philosophy  of  Aristotle  or  Kant,  or  the  doctrines  of 
Trent  or  Geneva,  have  dominated  long  periods  of  his- 
tory, and  which,  to  use  the  felicitous  expression  ot 
Mr  A.  J.  Balfour,  form  the  spiritual  atmosphere  we 
breathe. 

Philosophy  and  faith  thus  existed  before  they  were 


PHILOSOPHY  AND  RELIGIOUS  DOCTRINE.        57 

reduced  to  systems,  or  were  arranged  in  scholastic  or 
ecclesiastical  dogmas.  In  recognising  this,  we  by  no 
means  return  to  the  theory  commonly  named  after 
Creuzer,  its  ablest  and  most  learned  advocate,  which 
attracted  great  attention  at  the  beginning  of  the 
present  century,  the  theory  that  mythology  and  sym- 
bolism— that  is  to  say,  the  beliefs  of  ancient  peoples 
— were  nothing  but  philosophy  in  disguise,  an  exoteric 
doctrine  destined  for  the  multitude,  and  interpreted 
literally  by  them  in  their  simplicity,  but  whose  esoteric 
significance  was  perfectly  understood  by  the  philo- 
sophers and  divines  who  had  devised  it.  This  theory 
has  long  since  been  condemned  by  all  scholars  ;  and  no 
one  could  venture  to  defend  it  nowadays  without 
exposing  himself  to  ridicule.  Nor  can  the  theory  be 
maintained  in  the  new  form  which  certain  philosophers 
have  given  it,  to  the  effect  that  our  dogmatic  is  merely 
a  diluted  philosophy,  translated  from  stiff  formulae  and 
abstract  ideas  into  figures  and  symbols,  solely  for  the 
convenience  of  the  ignorant  many,  whose  thinking 
capacity  is  as  yet  insufficiently  trained  to  receive  the 
truth  except  in  parables — a  sort  of  picture-book  for 
children,  who  could  understand  nothing  of  the  matter 
without  it.  For  it  is  inaccurate  to  say  that  the 
Christian  religion,  for  example,  in  its  different  vari- 
ations, consists  in  figures  and  similes,  except  only  in  so 
far  as  human  language  is  inadequate  to  express  the 
supernatural  and  infinite  otherwise  than  by  analogy. 


58  SCIENCE  OF  RELIGION. 

For  this  is  not  done  merely  to  satisfy  the  needs  of  the 
less  developed,  but  simply  because  it  is  unavoidable. 
There  are  things  which  we  cannot  speak  of  in  any  other 
way.  And  does  not  even  philosophy,  when  it  pene- 
trates to  the  lowest  depths,  or  soars  to  the  loftiest 
heights,  or  when  it  grapples  with  the  most  difficult 
problems,  adopt  the  very  same  method  ?  The  only 
persons  who  neither  adopt  nor  require  to  adopt  this 
method  are  those  who  give  up  the  attempt  to  seek  for 
unity  in  the  interpretation  of  the  world's  problem,  and 
who  deny  everything  supernatural.  And  as  regards 
Antiquity  —  the  period  of  the  origin,  co-ordination, 
and  organisation  of  myths,  or  in  a  word,  the  mytho- 
logical period  in  its  two  stages — mythology  was  not 
then  a  mere  vehicle  for  conveying  truths  which  could 
not  be  otherwise  grasped,  but  was  itself  the  very 
philosophy  and  religious  doctrine  of  that  period. 
Myths  and  symbols  were  at  first  the  necessary  forms 
of  both,  for  they  were  the  only  forms  of  thought 
corresponding  with  the  imaginative  capacity  in  that 
early  stage  of  development.  To  later  and  less  un- 
sophisticated times  belong  the  temple  -  schools  and 
sacerdotal  colleges ;  the  gods  are  classified  in  the- 
ogonies,  and  in  the  hierarchy  of  an  organised  heavenly 
kingdom ;  the  genesis  of  all  things  is  explained  in 
cosmogonies ;  sometimes,  at  least  among  the  Aryan 
peoples,  the  whole  drama  of  the  world  is  traced  in 
its  successive  periods,  and  crowned  with  speculations 


PHILOSOPHY  AND  RELIGIOUS  DOCTRINE.        59 

concerning  its  most  distant  future.  But  here  again 
we  deny  that  these  are  images  which  conceal  their 
thoughts :  in  so  far  as  they  are  images,  they  are 
the  only  possible  expressions  of  the  daring  thoughts 
of  their  period. 

Thus  far  philosophy  and  religious  doctrine  are  still 
closely  connected,  so  closely  indeed  that  it  is  impossible 
to  distinguish  the  one  from  the  other.  As  yet  all 
philosophical  speculation  is  at  the  same  time  a  "con- 
ception of  faith.  The  stage  of  thinking,  with  a  view 
to  comprehend  and  to  explain,  the  stage  of  science  or 
philosophy  as  ends  in  themselves,  has  not  yet  arrived. 
There  is  as  yet  no  theory  apart  from  practice.  At 
length,  slowly  but  surely,  comes  the  differentiation. 
Laymen  attempt  the  solution  of  questions  hitherto 
regarded  as  the  sole  property  of  priests  and  theo- 
logians. Even  the  Vedic  Brahmanas  afford  evidence 
of  this  in  more  than  one  passage.^  Kings,  who  thus 
belonged  to  the  rank  of  the  Eajanyas,  ventured  to 
ask  questions  of  learned  and  even  famous  Brahmans, 
such  as  Yajnavalkya ;  and  when  these  sages  were 
embarrassed  and  unable  to  reply,  the  questioners 
themselves  supplied  the  answers.  Questions  and 
answers  alike  seem  to  us  absurd.  They  are  character- 
istic of  that  playful  fencing  of  wits  in  which  Orientals 
delight.      Yet    they   are   the   first   glimmerings   of    a 

^  See  the  passages  quoted  by  Dr  John  Muir  in  his  '  Original  Sanskrit 
Texts,'  vol.  i.  p.  427  seq. 


60  SCIENCE   OF  RELIGION. 

philosophy  more  or  less  independent  of  religion,  or 
at  least  independent  of  those  who  had  hitherto  usurped 
exclusive  sway  in  all  spiritual  matters — a  philosophy 
according  indeed  but  little  with  our  methods  of 
thinking,  yet  one  which  by  its  originality,  depth, 
and  boldness  constitutes  an  important  chapter  in  the 
history  of  the  human  mind.  The  independent  philo- 
sophy of  the  West  took  its  rise  in  Greece,  that  cradle 
of  our  modern  civilisation,  and  developed  its  greatest 
power  among  the  Germanic  peoples,  and  not  least  in 
that  country  where,  as  I  am  assured,  every  thinking 
being,  from  the  Duke  of  Argyll  and  Mr  A.  J.  Balfour 
to  the  youngest  student  in  the  University  of  Edin- 
burgh, is  at  once  a  philosopher  and  a  theologian.  But 
it  is  perhaps  in  the  history  of  Greek  and  of  German 
philosophy  that  the  relation  between  philosophy,  now 
of  full  stature,  and  the  prevailing  religion  can  best  be 
studied.  It  is  natural  that  religion,  especially  at  first, 
should  bitterly  oppose  philosophy,  and  that  philosophy, 
now  conscious  of  its  power,  should  repudiate  the 
dictation  of  the  Church,  and  decline  to  formulate  its 
results  in  conformity  with  the  precepts  of  theology. 
Each  anxiously  and  jealously  guards  its  own  domain. 
Henceforth  they  develop  side  by  side.  Yet,  having 
been  once  so  closely  connected,  being  still  related,  and 
concerning  themselves  with  the  same  subject-matter, 
though  with  different  aims,  they  are  bound  to  come 
into  ever  closer  contact.     It  is  philosophy  in  particular 


PHILOSOPHY  AND  RELIGIOUS  DOCTRINE.        {M 

that  exerts  a  constant  influence  over  religious  doctrine. 
You  will  remember  that  the  Christian  dogmatic  not 
only  derived  the  form  of  its  dogmas,  but  even  borrowed 
many  ideas  from  Greek  philosophy,  in  so  far  as  they 
could  be  made  to  harmonise  with  the  teaching  of  the 
Gospel.  Think  only  of  the  supremacy  wielded  by 
Aristotle,  or  at  least  by  the  philosophy  regarded  as  his, 
over  the  scholasticism  of  the  Middle  Ages,  and  even 
over  the  dogmatic  of  the  Eeformers  and  their  suc- 
cessors. In  Calvin  were  united  the  philosopher  and 
the  theologian,  as  was  afterwards  the  case  with 
Schleiermacher.  The  Eemonstrant  theology  of  the 
eighteenth  century  was  much  indebted  to  Locke  ;  and 
I  need  hardly  remind  you  of  the  immense  influence 
exerted  by  such  philosophers  as  Kant  and  Hegel  upon 
the  theology  of  the  nineteenth  century  in  Germany  and 
beyond  it. 

After  what  has  been  said,  it  will  be  comparatively 
easy  to  determine  wherein  philosophy  and  religious 
doctrine  agree  and  wherein  they  differ.  The  task  of 
philosophy  is,  with  the  aid  of  our  whole  experience, 
to  explain  our  faculty  of  perception  and  our  whole 
knowledge,  and  thence  to  construct  a  complete  and 
connected  cosmogony.  With  this  end  in  view,  it 
utilises  the  results  of  the  various  sciences,  sifts, 
criticises,  and  co-ordinates  them,  and  is  thus  the 
science  of  sciences.  Its  investigation  also  embraces 
religious   belief,   which   is   a   conviction   of    the   con- 


62  SCIENCE   OF  RELIGION. 

science,  and  which  it  tests  in  order  to  see  "how  far 
it  accords  with  the  laws  of  logical  thought  and  with 
the  ascertained  results  of  our  scientific  knowledge  of 
the  world."  ^  Whatever  be  its  influence  on  human 
life  and  conduct,  whatever  practical  lessons  may  be 
deduced  from  the  laws  it  has  discovered,  yet,  ever 
since  it  has  attained  independence,  it  has  been  purely 
theory,  purely  science.  Religious  doctrine,  on  the 
other  hand,  is  not  science,  but  is  a  theory  of  prac- 
tice. It  also  rests  on  a  metaphysical  foundation,  and 
unless  convinced  of  the  reality  of  a  superseusual 
world  it  builds  upon  sand ;  but  since  it  has  attained 
its  independence  it  has  been  primarily  a  doctrine  of 
life.  At  first  it  runs  a  course  parallel  with  that  of 
philosophy,  and  requires  to  be  careful  to  keep  step 
with  it  from  the  very  outset.  But  even  when  they 
progress  side  by  side,  religious  doctrine  to  some  extent 
pursues  its  own  way.  In  other  words,  while  it  as- 
similates metaphysical  truth  from  philosophy,  because 
it  feels  the  need  of  a  solid  foundation  for  its  edifice, 
it  seeks  to  substantiate  that  truth  mainly  by  the 
evidence  of  conscience,  and  then  proceeds  to  ask 
what  bearing  the  truth  has  upon  human  life.  It 
defines  the  relations  between  God  and  man,  their 
foundation  and  essence,  the  causes  which  sever  them, 
and  the  means  by  which  they  may  be  renewed ;  and 

^  Pfleiderer,    Religionsphilosophie    auf    geschichtlicher     Grundlage, 
3rd  ed.,  p.  459. 


PHILOSOPHY  AND  RELIGIOUS  DOCTRINE.        63 

these  it  sums  up,  either  in  the  form  of  a  law,  or  a 
theological  system,  or  in  a  series  of  principles  to  be 
promulgated  by  preaching.  It  is  above  all  a  doctrine 
of  salvation,  an  "Anweisung  zum  seligen  Leben,"  a 
"guide  to  a  blessed  life,"  as  it  has  been  called  by  a 
great  philosopher.  It  thus  has  its  own  subject- 
matter,  aim,  and  method,  and  is  therefore  a  very 
different  thing  from  a  mere  translation  of  the  abstract 
ideas  of  philosophy  into  popular  images ;  just  as  even 
philosophy  itself  cannot  advance  very  far  with  its 
abstract  ideas,  for  as  soon  as  it  enters  the  domain 
of  metaphysics  it  is  also  obliged  to  have  recourse  to 
analogies  and  images.  In  short,  philosophy  has  ful- 
filled its  task  as  soon  as  it  has  given  a  reasonable 
explanation  of  the  phenomena  of  nature,  and  has  set 
up  a  cosmogony  which  satisfies  the  demands  of  rational 
thought;  but  religion  goes  farther,  and  teaches  that 
the  only  way  in  v/hich  we  can  become  reconciled 
with  the  world  and  with  life  is  to  establish  our 
proper  relation  towards  God  —  not  a  way  to  selfish 
happiness,  but  a  way  to  harmony  in  our  being, 
thought,  and  feeling,  and  to  true  peace  of  mind. 
Well  might  religion  adopt  as  her  motto  the  sacred 
words,  "  I  will  give  you  rest  for  your  souls ! " 

If  this,  then,  be  the  relation  between  philosophy 
and  religious  doctrine — first  a  long  period  of  union, 
during  which  they  are  hardly  distinguishable  from 
each    other,    and    then    a    severance,    during    which, 


64  SCIENCE   OF  RELIGION. 

although  presenting  many  points  of  contact,  they  are 
in  a  great  measure  independent,  and  pursue  totally 
different  aims — why  is  it  that  so  deadly  a  conflict 
often  arises  between  them  ?  For  they  are  constantly 
at  war,  or  at  least  on  that  footing  of  armed  peace 
which,  as  is  the  case  with  the  great  powers  of 
Europe  during  this  closing  part  of  the  nineteenth 
century,  threatens  an  outbreak  at  any  moment. 
Almost  every  page  of  history  mentions  such  conflicts. 
It  cannot  be  said  that  believers  are  merely  defending 
themselves,  or  rather  defending  what  is  dearer  to 
them  than  all  else,  against  philosophers  who  attack 
religion  itself,  and  not  only  subject  what  it  proclaims 
as  divine  truth  to  severe  criticism,  but  even  deny  it 
and  represent  it  as  mere  imagination  —  it  cannot  be 
said,  in  short,  that  it  is  merely  a  struggle  of  religion 
for  existence.  This  may  perhaps  hold  true  with  respect 
to  some  of  the  schools  and  teachers  of  antiquity,  such 
as  the  later  Eleatics,  the  Atomists,  the  Epicureans,  or 
the  French  Encyclopsedists  of  the  eighteenth  century, 
or  men  like  Feuerbach,  Nietzsche,  and  many  others ; 
but  it  does  not  hold  true  of  a  Pythagoras,  an 
Anaxagoras,  a  Socrates,  or  of  such  profound  religious 
pantheists  as  Spinoza  and  Fichte,  and  such  philoso- 
phical theologians  as  Schleiermacher  and  Biedermann, 
nearly  all  of  whom,  in  the  name  of  religion,  have 
been  martyred,  persecuted,  exiled,  or  condemned  as 
heretics.      Self-defence  is  not  the  only  cause  of  the 


PHILOSOPHY  AND  RELIGIOUS  DOCTRINE.        65 

strife.  Nor  is  it  the  only  cause  on  the  part  of 
philosophy,  which  often  attacks  religion,  although 
its  right  of  investigation  and  criticism  is  fully  re- 
cognised. When  a  shallow  rationalistic  or  cynical- 
materialistic  philosophy  proposes  to  weigh  everything 
in  its  puny  scale,  and  denies  the  rights  of  the  soul, 
then  indeed  religion  is  in  danger,  and  those  who  love 
it  must  take  up  arms  in  its  defence.  In  that  case 
philosophy  is  to  blame.  When  it  proposes  to  explain 
everything,  even  the  origin  and  essence  of  things, 
upon  base  and  material  principles,  religion  is  then 
fully  justified  in  opposing  such  a  distorted  view. 

But  they  are  not  always  so  strongly  opposed  to  each 
other.  Their  dissensions  often  arise  from  misunder- 
standing, from  the  confounding  of  a  specific  and  tempor- 
ary form  of  religion  with  religion  itself.  Philosophers 
oppose  religion  because  they  are  unable  to  distinguish 
it  from  the  conceptions  in  which  it  presents  itself  to 
them,  or  to  comprehend  that  these  conceptions  are 
merely  an  ephemeral  garb ;  and  they  do  not  take  the 
trouble  to  penetrate  to  the  ineradicable  needs  of  the 
human  soul  which  are  revealed  in  these  conceptions. 
Theologians,  labouring  under  a  similar  misconception, 
regard  philosophy  as  an  enemy  of  religion  because  it 
subjects  to  criticism  the  poetic  and  philosophic  forms, 
the  myths  and  dogmas  in  which  religion  expresses 
itself,  and  do  not  perceive  that  it  thus  in  reality 
conduces  to  the  purification  and  the  development  of 

VOL.  II.  E 


66  SCIENCE   OF  RELIGION. 

religion.  But  the  principal  cause  of  these  dissensions 
is  a  different  one.  It  consists  in  the  difference  of 
development  which  often  subsists  between  the  two. 
Philosophy  continues  its  researches  without  intermis- 
sion. Eeligious  doctrine,  on  the  other  hand — and  here 
I  allude  not  to  philosophic  theologians  and  religious 
thinkers,  but  solely  to  organised  communities  —  re- 
mains stationary  for  long  periods.  For  a  long  time 
elapses  before  the  need  of  revision  is  felt.  Whatever 
it  has  appropriated  from  philosophy  and  science,  its 
knowledge  of  nature  and  mankind,  the  physiology 
and  psychology  by  which  its  conceptions  are  con- 
nected, all  belong  to  a  period  long  since  elapsed.  In 
this  respect,  therefore,  it  lags  behind  philosophy.  In 
so  far  as  its  garb  is  concerned,  it  stands  upon  an 
obsolete  platform.  And,  instead  of  trying  to  vindi- 
cate its  position  with  great  persistence,  but  always 
unsuccessfully,  and  thus  injuring  rather  than  pro- 
moting religion,  it  would  do  well  to  bring  its 
conceptions  and  arguments  into  harmony  with  the 
more  accurate  knowledge  and  clearer  insight  attained 
in  modern  times.  Nor  in  doing  so  would  it  require 
to  abandon  a  single  jot  of  the  essence  of  belief. 
Philosophy  and  religious  doctrine  must,  therefore, 
ever  continue  in  mutual  intercourse.  Philosophy 
must  not  be  content  to  criticise  religion  and  faith,  or 
perhaps  to  condemn  them  on  account  of  an  obsolete 
doctrine  which  may  happen  once  to  have  been  officially 


PHILOSOPHY  AND  RELIGIOUS  DOCTRINE.        67 

recognised  in  one  communion  or  another,  and  accepted 
by  the  multitude  without  much  reflection,  but  which 
has  long  since  been  modified  by  earnest  seekers  of 
religious  truth  and  brought  into  harmony  with  the 
demands  of  religious  souls  and  of  general  spiritual 
development.  Eeligious  doctrine,  on  the  other  hand, 
must  not  come  into  conflict  with  what  has  been 
ascertained  and  established  in  other  domains,  whether 
moral,  scientific,  or  philosophical.  For  this  is  a  corol- 
lary of  the  law  of  the  Unity  of  mind,  the  necessity 
of  which  we  have  already  pointed  out. 

It  might  almost  seem  as  if,  in  dwelling  so  fully  upon 
the  subject  of  creeds  or  doctrines  of  faith,  we  meant  to 
identify  them  with  religion.  The  reverse  is  the  case. 
They  are  not  even  the  foundation  of  religion.  Eeligion 
existed  long  before  there  could  be  any  question  of 
framing  its  doctrine.  The  matter  stands  thus.  Ee- 
ligion begins  with  conceptions  awakened  by  emotions 
and  experiences,  and  these  conceptions  produce  definite 
sentiments,  which  were  already  present  in  germ  in  the 
first  religious  emotions,  but  which  can  only  be  aroused 
to  consciousness  by  these  conceptions ;  and  these  senti- 
ments manifest  themselves  in  actions.  But  all  this 
is  spontaneous,  and  originally  at  least  it  was  not  the 
result  of  conscious  reflection.  Eeflection  comes  on  the 
scene  at  a  later  period,  on  a  higher  stage  of  develop- 
ment, and  consciously  frames  its  creed  or  doctrine  of 
faith.     This  doctrine  has  two  forms,  a  practical  and  a 


68  SCIENCE   OF  RELIGION. 

scientific,  which,  though  differing  in  form  and  aim,  are 
identical  in  content.  Both  are  indispensable  for  in- 
struction, the  one  for  the  benefit  of  the  community, 
the  other  for  the  training  of  those  who  are  destined 
to  be  its  pioneers.  Both  of  them  embrace,  sum  up, 
and  arrange  the  results  of  religious  experience  and 
speculation  prevailing  in  different  stages  of  develop- 
ment in  a  definite  sphere,  and  in  one  or  other  form  of 
religion.  The  doctrine  of  faith,  as  we  have  said,  is 
the  theory  of  a  practice,  not  an  abstract  philosophical 
system,  but  a  doctrine  of  life.  Its  essential  value 
consists  also  in  this,  that  it  affords  thoughtful  believers 
an  opportunity  of  testing  the  foundations  of  their 
faith,  and  that  it  is  likewise  adapted  to  justify  faith 
as  a  connected  system  in  response  to  the  doubts  of 
others.  And  it  possesses  the  further  merit  of  sum- 
marising and  conserving  all  that  earlier  generations 
have  attained  in  the  domain  of  religion,  and  thus  of 
forming  a  starting-point  for  a  renewed  investigation  of 
truth. 

I  am  well  aware  that  it  has  sometimes  been  scandal- 
ously misused.  I  do  not  forget  that  it  has  been  de- 
graded to  the  function  of  fettering^  men's  consciences, 
of  stifling  inquiry,  and  of  hampering  the  loftier  flights 
of  the  human  mind.  I  admit  that,  in  its  name,  men 
have  sown  hatred  and  discord,  have  persecuted,  mar- 
tyred, and  murdered.  Nay,  even  in  the  name  of  science 
and  philosophy,  similar  cruelties  have  been  perpetrated. 


PHILOSOPHY  AND  RELIGIOUS   BOGTRINE.         69 

But  I  maintain  that  for  every  religion  that  claims  to 
be  something  more  than  a  transient  outburst  of  fanat- 
icism, or   a  dead  ritualism    or    formalism,   for    every 
religion  that  desires  to  stand  on  the  solid  foundation 
of  Truth,  the  examination  of  its  creed  is  an  imperative 
necessity.      Without  such  examination  every  ethical 
religion  must  run  wild.     It  has  been  seriously  main- 
tained of  late  that  ministers  of  the  Gospel  would  do 
better  in  future  to  devote  themselves  to  the  study  of 
political  economy,  or  of  social  questions,  rather  than 
to  that  of  theology  and  the  science  of  religion.     Were 
such  a  view  to  find  acceptance,  it  would  be  fatal,  not 
only  to  the  Church,  but  to  the  whole  development  and 
prosperity  of  religion.     It  is  a  consolation,  however,  to 
know  that  it  is  not  the  first  time  that  this  folly  has 
been  proclaimed,  and  that  it  will  probably  die  out  as 
quickly  as  it  did  on  former  occasions.     Even  Melanch- 
thon  had  to  contend  against  it.     And  it  aroused  the 
usually  so  gentle  and  humane  Prteceptor  Germanise  to 
such  indignation  that  he  declared  that  "  those  who  from 
the  pulpit  tried  to  dissuade  men  from  religious  studies 
ought  to  have  their  tongues  cut  out."  ^    I  cannot  recom- 
mend so  radical  a  measure ;  but  I  earnestly  hope  that 
neither  the  Church  will  be  swept  away,  nor  that  men 
who  have  been  trained  for  their  important  office  by  a 
careful  study  of  theology  and  a  scientific  investigation 

^  See  A.  Hausrath,  "  Philipp  Melanchthon,"  in  the  '  Protestantische 
Monatshefte,'  L,  ii.  p.  45. 


70  SCIENCE   OF  RELIGION. 

of  religion  will  ever  be  superseded  by  socialistic  quacks 
or  dabblers  in  political  science. 

But  I  must  ask  pardon  for  this  digression.  I  now 
return  to  our  proper  theme.  If  the  doctrines  of  belief 
are  highly  conducive  to  the  maintenance,  propagation, 
and  development  of  religion,  they  are  no  less  valuable 
to  the  student  of  the  science  of  religion.  The  com- 
parative study  of  creeds  forms  one  of  the  chief  sources 
of  our  knowledge  of  religions,  and  best  enables  us  to 
investigate  their  essence  and  origin.  It  has  precisely 
the  same  relation  to  our  science  as  comparative  philo- 
logy has  to  the  science  of  language.  It  is  no  more  the 
business  of  the  science  of  religion  to  propound  a  new 
creed,  in  addition  to  those  already  existing,  than  it  is 
the  task  of  the  science  of  language  to  attempt  to  set  up 
a  new  art  of  speech.  As  comparative  philology  is  the 
source  of  our  knowledge  of  the  laws,  essence,  genesis, 
and  growth  of  language,  so  the  comparative  study  of 
creeds  is  the  source  of  our  knowledge  of  religion  and 
belief.  Professor  Pfleiderer  of  Berlin,  my  esteemed 
predecessor  in  this  lectureship,  has  recently  given  new 
evidence  of  his  unwearied  energy  in  the  publication  of 
a  new  and  entirely  remodelled  edition  of  his  '  Philosophy 
of  Eeligion.'^  And  this  edition  also  affords  evidence 
of  his  true  scientific  spirit,  as  he  does  not  hesitate  to 
renounce  his  earlier  views  when  continued  investigation 

^  Religionsphilosophie  auf  Geschichtlicher  Grundlage ;  dritte  neu 
bearbeitete  Auflage  ;  Berlin,  1896. 


PHILOSOPHY  AND  RELIGIOUS  DOCTRINE.        71 

has  led  him  to  form  new  opinions.     No  one  can  study 
that  work  without  deriving  much  instruction  from  it, 
even   when  he   sometimes  feels   constrained  to  differ 
from  the  author.     My  own  conception  of  the  task  and 
method  of  the  science  of  religion  coincides  in  many 
respects  with  his.     In  particular  I  concur  with  him  in 
his  appreciation  of  historical  research  as  its  foundation, 
although  I  regard  historical  research  as  a  mere  pre- 
paration for  philosophical  study,  while  he  goes  a  step 
farther  in  regarding    it   as   an  integral   part  of  such 
study.     In  one  main  point,  however,  I  differ  from  him 
entirely.     In  his  view  the  aim  of  the  science  of  religion  ^ 
is  to  effect  a  reconciliation   ("eine  Verstandigung  zu 
vermitteln")  between  religion,  as  historically  handed 
down,  and  the  scientific  knowledge  of  the  present  day. 
For  this  purpose  it  would  require  to  test  every  detail 
of  religious  tradition,  in  order  to  ascertain  how  far  it 
accords  with  the  laws  of  logical  thought,  and  with  our 
scientific  knowledge  of  the  world — with  the  established 
facts  of  natural  and  historical  science.     But  such  is 
not,  in  my  opinion,  the  task  of  the  science  of  religion, 
but  rather  that  of  philosophic  theology,  which  is,  in 
fact,  a  new  form  of  dogmatic ;  or  it  is  the  task  of  some 
special  dogmatic,  treated  as  a  science.     Still  less  do  I 
agree    with   him   in   his  doctrine   that  the  science  of 
religion  must  rest  partly  on  metaphysical  foundations, 
— that  it  must  inquire  into  the  origin  of  the  relation, 

^  P.  459  of  the  edition  cited. 


72  SCIENCE  OF  RELIGION. 

as  understood  by  the  devout,  between  God  and  man, 
and  determine  how  we  are  metaphysically  to  regard 
God's  relation  to  us,  and  also  to  the  world  in  general, 
since  we  form  part  of  that  world.  Such  a  problem,  in 
my  opinion,  belongs  to  the  department  of  general 
philosophy.  If  the  science  of  religion  attempted  its 
solution  it  would  go  beyond  its  province.  For  such  a 
task  the  votaries  of  our  science  would  require  to  under- 
take a  preliminary  investigation,  and  to  possess  a  wealth 
of  knowledge  in  different  provinces,  which  could  not 
reasonably  be  demanded  of  them.  Our  study,  in  short, 
forms  a  department  of  anthropological,  not  of  meta- 
physical science.  On  the  other  hand,  I  am  entirely  at 
one  with  him  when  he  imposes  on  our  science  the  duty 
of  examining  the  practical  motives  to  which  our  con- 
ceptions of  faith  respond.  For  these  conceptions  are 
the  symbolical  means  of  giving  expression  to  practical 
motives  and  arousing  them  to  action.  And  in  endeav- 
ouring to  understand  the  positive  psychological  con- 
tent of  historical  facts,  our  science  of  religion  has  become 
at  once  more  thorough  and  more  tolerant  than  it  used 
to  be.  On  that  point,  therefore,  he  is  unquestionably 
sound.  The  comparative  study  of  creeds,  again,  is  a 
psychological  investigation.  Its  aim  is  to  discover  how 
the  various  myths  and  dogmas,  apparently  conflicting, 
and  differing  a  thousandfold  in  form,  really  express 
those  self-same  general  needs  of  the  human  soul,  which 
are  ineradicable,  and  which  therefore  constantly  recur 


PHILOSOPHY  AND  RELIGIOUS  DOCTRINE.        73 

in  new  forms.  It  has  to  determine  what,  in  each  stage 
and  in  each  direction  of  development,  are  the  constant 
elements  of  religious  belief ;  it  has  to  discover,  by- 
means  of  patient  research  and  scientific  analysis,  what 
the  Eoman  Catholic  Church  attempts  to  establish  by 
infallible  authority :  quid  semper,  quid  uhique,  quid  ab 
omnibus  creditur.  Eeligion,  the  subject-matter  of  its 
inquiry,  is  a  metaphysical  fact,  but  its  method  of  inquiry 
is  not  metaphysical. 

Now  every  creed,  be  it  expressed  in  philosophical 
dogmas,  or  in  poetic  myths,  or  in  childish  animistic 
conceptions,  is  the  summary  of  all  those  elements 
which  together  constitute  every  religion,  and  whence 
every  religious  idea  emanates.  Its  main  constituents 
are  a  doctrine  regarding  God  (or  theology),  a  doctrine 
regarding  man's  relation  to  God,  ideal  and  real  (or 
anthropology),  and  a  doctrine  regarding  the  means  of 
establishing  and  maintaining  communion  with  God 
(soteriology  or  the  doctrine  of  salvation).  By  these 
means  we  are  presented  with  a  complete  picture  of 
religion,  and  we  are  therefore  best  enabled  to  study  it 
by  a  comparison  of  creeds. 

The  starting-point  is  theology  ;  for  belief  in  one  or 
more  supernatural  powers,  in  a  God  or  a  divine  world, 
is  the  foundation  on  which  all  religion  rests.  There 
can  be  no  religion  without  a  God.  In  their  zeal  for 
religion  without  metaphysics,  people  have  sometimes 
spoken  of  an  atheistic  tinge  in  modern  theology,  which 


74  SCIENCE   OF  RELIGION. 

is  nevertheless  supposed  to  be  consistent  with  religion. 
But  it  is  surely  obvious  that  the  combination  "  atheistic 
theology  "  sounds  somewhat  strange,  and  would  indeed 
be  ludicrous  if  the  matter  were  not  too  serious.  We 
have  already  spoken  of  the  atheism  of  Buddhism  ;  but 
when  it  made  its  appearance  as  a  religion  it  had 
Buddha  for  its  God.  What,  however,  distinguishes 
religious  theology  from  the  philosophic  is  that  the 
former  is  not  purely  speculative  like  the  latter,  but 
is  directed  to  practice.  The  principal  point  here  is 
not  the  question  as  to  the  nature  of  God,  but  as  to  His 
relation  to  us  and  to  the  world  of  which  we  form  part, 
and  as  to  the  agencies  and  ordinances  in  which  He 
reveals  Himself  to  us. 

The  converse  of  this  theology  consists  in  religious 
anthropology.  We  are  here  concerned  with  religious 
ideals  and  aspirations,  with  man's  origin  and  destiny, 
with  his  life  in  communion  with  his  God  and  in  obedi- 
ence to  His  laws  and  commandments.  But,  in  contrast 
to  this  ideal,  we  find  man  in  his  unworthiness  and 
weakness,  his  communion  with  God  obstructed  by 
sensuality  and  selfishness  and  broken  by  sin,  while  he 
himself  looks  longingly  for  salvation  and  redemption, 
for  reconciliation  with  his  God,  for  help  in  the  conflict. 

To  this  longing  responds,  in  the  third  place,  the  doc- 
trine of  salvation,  which  indicates  the  means  of  restoring 
that  communion,  of  breaking  the  power  of  evil,  of  be- 
ginning and  continuing  a  new  life,  and  of  realising  hope. 


PHILOSOPHY  AND  RELIGIOUS  DOCTRINE.        75 

In  order  to  understand  the  essence  of  religion  we 
must  study  these  three  root -ideas  of  all  religion  in 
succession.  They  may  fairly,  though  not  quite  fully, 
be  summed  up  in  the  favourite  watchword  of  religion, 
"  faith,  charity,  and  hope,"  and  they  also  coincide, 
though  not  quite  exactly,  with  the  three  constituents 
of  religion,  conceptions,  sentiments,  and  actions. 

Do  not,  however,  suppose  that,  in  making  this  state- 
ment, we  only  have  in  view  religion  in  its  highest 
development,  or  that  all  this  may  apply  to  the 
Christian  and  several  other  ethical  religions,  but  not 
to  the  nature-religions,  or  at  least  not  to  the  lowest  of 
these.  It  holds  good  of  all.  In  a  thousand  varieties, 
in  conceptions,  differing  according  to  the  degree  of 
development  and  the  character  of  many  races  and 
peoples,  we  invariably  find  these  three  elements :  belief 
in  a  divine  power  upon  which  we  are  dependent,  belief 
in  the  high  origin  and  destiny  of  man,  coupled  with  a 
consciousness  of  his  shortcomings,  and  belief  in  the 
possibility  of  salvation,  combined  with  attempts  to 
secure  that  blessed  consummation.  All  religions  are 
religions  of  redemption,  and  all  religious  doctrine  is  a 
doctrine  of  salvation.  This  is  one  of  the  most  striking, 
and  at  the  same  time  most  certain,  results  of  our 
science.  And  to  demonstrate  this  truth,  even  when  it 
manifests  itself  in  but  feeble  germs  or  in  unfamiliar 
forms,  is  one  of  our  chief  tasks. 


76 


LECTUEE    IV. 

THE   CONSTANT   ELEMENT   IN   ALL  CONCEPTIONS 
OF   GOD. 

Nowhere  perhaps  do  there  exist  such  diversity  and 
such  conflict  of  views  as  in  the  province  of  the  concep- 
tion,':'of  faitli.  To  any  one  making  acquaintance  with 
this  province  for  the  first  time  it  seems  a  perfect 
chaos ;  and  even  those  who  have  explored  it  carefully 
find  it  very  difficult  to  survey  it  and  map  it  out  on  any 
systematic  plan.  In  a  sphere  in  which  imagination  has 
free  scope  and  often  seems  to  run  riot,  is  it  not  in  vain 
to  seek  for  any  constant  element,  to  try  to  discover  any- 
thing like  unity  amid  endless  multiplicity,  or  anything 
abiding  amid  ceaseless  change  ?  The  task  is  certainly 
a  difficult  one,  but  it  is  not  hopeless.  For  the  abiding 
element  we  seek  is  not  to  be  found  in  the  conceptions 
themselves,  but  rather  in  what  they  express.  We  might 
perhaps  arrange  the  multiform  conceptions  in  certain 
groups,  and  then  reduce  these  to  a  number  of  definite 
types,  but  we  should  be  unable  to  demonstrate  the  ne- 


CONCEPTIONS  OF  GOD.  11 

cessity  of  these  types.  They  may  often  recur  in  some- 
what modified  form,  but  there  is  nothing  to  prove  that 
they  must  always  recur ;  and  it  may  even  be  doubted 
whether  we  should  then  have  laid  a  foundation  for  any 
such  assumption.  We  should  find  that  certain  definite 
conceptions  are  common  to  peoples  and  communities 
which  are  either  related  to  each  other,  or  which  have 
reached  the  same  stage  of  development,  but  that,  as 
soon  as  the  whole  of  mankind  has  outgrown  these  con- 
ceptions, they  recur  no  more,  and  henceforth  retain  an 
historical  value  only.  And  how  can  it  be  otherwise  ? 
Could  we,  for  instance,  still  conceive  the  Deity  as  en- 
throned on  the  clouds  of  heaven  or  in  the  realms  of 
light  above  the  firmament,  while  the  powers  of  darkness 
and  evil  hold  sway  in  the  depths  beneath  ?  We  should 
in  that  case  still  have  to  regard  the  earth  as  the  centre 
of  the  universe,  fixed  above  a  dark  abyss,  and  vaulted 
over  by  the  heavens,  and  we  should  have  to  repudiate 
all  the  ascertained  results  of  scientific  research  and  re- 
flection. Let  us  take  another  example.  For  many  long 
ages  polytheism  was  the  normal  form  of  religious  belief, 
except  where  the  latter  still  occupied  the  lower  stage  of 
polydsemonism  ;  and  it  is  not  until  late  in  the  history  of 
mankind,  and  only  among  one  or  two  peoples  at  first, 
that  it  was  superseded  by  monotheism.  Slow  of  growth, 
the  latter  only  triumphed  after  a  long  struggle.  For 
pure  polytheism  there  is  now  no  future  left.  It  still 
survives,  but  within  ever  narrower  limits.     It  has  in- 


78  SCIENCE  OF  RELIGION. 

deed  revived  in  some  monotheistic  religions,  when  these 
have  been  imposed  by  force  upon  a  people  or  a  com- 
munity which  was  not  yet  ripe  for  them,  but  only  on 
condition  that  its  numerous  gods  group  themselves 
round  the  throne  of  the  One  as  his  servants  and  vas- 
sals. We  may  safely  say  that  the  foundation  of  a  pure 
polytheistic  religion,  except  perhaps  among  a  people 
absolutely  shut  off  from  civilisation,  has  once  for  all  be- 
come an  impossibility.  Poets  like  Schiller  and  Heine 
may  dwell  regretfully  on  the  beauties  of  the  Greek  or 
the  German  theogony,  which  seemed  beautiful  to  them 
because  they  saw  their  poetical  side  only  ;  but  these 
systems  will  never  return.  Zeus  and  his  Olympians, 
and  Wodan  with  his  Asas,  belong  irrevocably  to  the 
past,  in  this  sense  that  they  can  never  again  become 
objects  of  belief.  A  religious  conception  may  be  ab- 
solutely general  during  a  long  period,  or  even  through- 
out a  series  of  successive  periods  of  history,  so  general 
that  we  may  almost  regard  it  as  an  essential  element 
inherent  in  all  religion  ;  yet  there  comes  a  time  when 
it  turns  out  to  be  no  less  transitory  than  the  concep- 
tions it  has  superseded. 

"We  must  therefore,  as  I  have  already  said,  search  for 
unity,  for  the  abiding,  for  the  essential,  not  in  any  con- 
ception, however  general  or  enduring  it  may  seem  to 
be,  but  solely  in  the  religious  thoughts  and  aspirations 
to  which  the  conceptions  give  expression.  When  we 
find  such   thoughts   constantly   reviving    under    new 


CONCEPTIONS  OF  GOD.  79 

forms,  we  may  reasonably  assume  that  they  are  essen- 
tials of  religion. 

I  do  not  of  course  propose  to  subject  the  whole  of 
religious  doctrine  in  all  its  details  to  such  an  investiga- 
tion. We  must  confine  ourselves  to  a  few  leading  ideas, 
and  try  to  show  that  they  constitute  an  integral  part 
of  religious  belief,  although  manifesting  themselves  in 
very  various  and  sometimes  apparently  conflicting  forms. 

The  first  question  which  requires  to  be  answered  is 
— What  is  this  permanent  and  essential  element  in  the 
manifold  conceptions  regarding  the  Deity  which  suc- 
ceed each  other  in  the  history  of  mankind,  and  which 
still  cause  so  many  divisions  at  the  present  day  ?  For 
all  religious  doctrine  emanates  from  some  theology, 
however  primitive.  What  then,  it  may  be  asked,  has 
the  only,  eternal,  all-wise  and  powerful,  omnipresent 
and  omniscient,  holy,  just,  merciful,  and  gracious  God, 
whom  Christians,  Jews,  and  Mohammedans  alike  wor- 
ship, albeit  in  different  ways  —  the  God  whom  the 
Gospel  proclaims  as  the  Perfect  one,  the  loving,  all- 
attracting,  all-reconciling  heavenly  Father — what  has 
He  in  common  with  even  the  highest  of  the  nature-gods, 
the  Zeus-Jupiter  of  Hellas  and  Eome,  not  to  speak  of 
the  bloodthirsty  beings  in  whose  honour  Canaanites  and 
Moabites,  Accadians,  Celts,  Mexicans,  and  many  others 
slaughtered  their  fellow-men  and  even  their  own  chil- 
dren ?  What  has  He  in  common  with  the  gods  (not  to 
descend  to  the  lowest  stage)  whose  power  extends  over 


^' 


80  SCIENCE  OF  RELIGION. 

a  limited  domain  only,  who  have  been  born  and  who 
die,  who  are  swayed  by  the  lower  passions  and  are  sub- 
ject to  human  weaknesses  ?  I  might  reply  by  asking 
another  question  :  Have  we  ourselves  nothing  in  com- 
mon with  the  people  who  worshipped  these  beings  ?  Is 
not  the  difference  between  their  gods  and  ours  essen- 
tially the  same  as  the  difference  which  separates  them 
from  us,  though  they  were  men  of  the  same  mould  as 
ourselves  ?  We  need  not  at  present  inquire  into  the 
causes  of  that  difference,  as  we  have  investigated  them 
already.  It  is  a  difference  of  capacity  and  of  circum- 
stances, but  still  more  a  difference  in  development — 
the  difference  between  the  grain  of  mustard-seed  and 
the  tree  in  whose  branches  lodge  the  fowls  of  the  air, 
the  difference  between  the  stammering  child  and  the 
mighty  orator,  between  the  unbridled  fancy  of  the 
youth  and  the  ripe  wisdom  of  the  experienced  thinker. 
But  the  difference  is  not  so  great  as  it  appears  on  the 
surface.  Man  climbs  up  but  slowly  to  such  abstract 
ideas  as  eternity,  omnipresence,  and  holiness  in  the 
ethical  sense.  But  their  germ  is  nevertheless  distinctly 
discernible  in  the  less  developed  conceptions  of  deity. 
Let  us  then  try  to  ascertain  the  germ  from  which  the 
loftier  conceptions  have  gradually  developed.  I  mean 
the  one  element  which  essentially  and  indispensably 
constitutes  the  idea  of  a  god.  The  conclusion  to  which 
y  the  study  of  religions  has  led  us  is,  that  a  god  is  a 
superMcman  power. 


CONCEPTIONS  OF  GOD.  81 

This  is  no  mere  a  priori  notion,  but  the  result  of  a 
careful  and  many-sided  comparative-historical  investi- 
gation. How  such  a  conception  arose — whether  it 
sprang  out  of  the  impression  produced  by  the  pheno- 
mena of  nature,  and  by  the  action  of  the  powers  of 
nature  upon  the  human  mind,  or  rather  out  of  man's 
cognition  of  his  own  inmost  being,  which  he  after- 
wards applies  to  all  that  he  perceives  around  him — 
we  need  not  at  present  inquire.  We  shall  seek  for 
its  origin  at  a  later  stage ;  but  meanwhile  our  object  is 
to  show  that  even  the  richest  and  loftiest  conceptions 
of  deity  are  but  developments  of  this  simple  germ, 
and  that  they  lay  enshrined  within  it  from  the  very 
outset. 

The  root-idea,  then,  in  every  conception  of  godhead 
is  power.  In  whatever  manner  this  power  is  con- 
ceived, as  physical  or  rational,  as  beneficent  or  malev- 
olent, in  whatever  way  it  may  be  described  or  defined 
— as  wise,  just,  and  holy,  as  the  power  of  love,  drawing 
all  men  together  and  upholding  the  moral  order  of  the 
world,  or,  according  to  a  well-known  dogmatic  formula, 
the  power  of  irresistible  grace — the  idea  of  Power  is 
the  constant  and  immutable  element,  so  that  a  power- 
less god  cannot  be  a  god  at  all.  As  soon  as  the  man 
who  is  swayed  by  animistic  conceptions  begins  to 
think  that  his  fetish  is  powerless  to  help  him,  and  has, 
therefore,  deceived  him,  he  casts  it  aside ;  for  it  turns 

VOL.  II.  F 


82  SCIENCE  OF  RELIGION. 

out  not  to  have  been  a  genuine  god  after  all.  In  the 
seventeenth  century  the  Arminians  were  specially  con- 
demned by  the  Calvinists  on  the  ground  that  their 
doctrine  of  conditional  grace  seemed  to  set  bounds  to 
the  power  of  the  Almighty,  which,  however,  they  were 
by  no  means  disposed  to  deny.  And  a  couple  of 
centuries  later,  when  the  so-called  ethical  school  of 
theology,  with  its  pessimistic  views  of  the  world,  tried 
to  save  the  justice,  holiness,  and  goodness  of  God  by 
representing  the  Deity  as  the  power  of  Good,  contend- 
ing against  the  natural  and  moral  evil  of  which  it 
could  not  be  the  origin,  this,  again,  was  obviously  a 
limitation  of  God's  omnipotence  which  vitiated  the 
whole  system.  Even  in  a  sharply  defined  dualistic 
system  like  Zarathushtrism,  in  which  the  supremacy  of 
the  great  god  Ahura  Mazda,  though  undisputed  in 
heaven,  does  not  extend  over  the  realms  of  the  lying 
spirits  (drujas),  and  conflicts  with  that  of  the  arch- 
daeva,  Angra-Mainyu,  upon  earth  —  even  there  the 
power  of  the  god  is  superior  to  that  of  his  adversaries, 
and  is  destined  to  triumph  over  them  in  the  end. 

On  a  former  occasion,  in  treating  of  mythology  and 
its  interpretation,  I  had  occasion  to  remark  that  the 
religious  doctrine  of  polytheism  would  never  be  rightly 
understood  unless  the  various  gods  were  regarded  as 
personified  agencies,  as  fadores,  agentes,  or,  in  other 
words,  as  powerful  beings  revealing  themselves  in  the 
phenomena;  and  I  am  pleased  to  observe  that  Professor 


CONCEPTIONS  OF  GOD.  83 

Max  Mliller  has  recently  expressed  his  concurrence  in 
that  vievv.^ 

The  controversy  among  mythologists  as  to  the 
physical  significance  of  the  gods  is  well  known. 
There  was  a  time  when  several  different  theories  were 
in  marked  antagonism.  One  of  these  regarded  nearly 
the  whole  of  mythology  as  a  description  of  the  storm — 
of  the  strife  between  the  evil  powers,  who  try  to  with- 
hold the  beneficent  rain,  and  the  good  powers  who 
steal  water  or  fire  from  heaven  and  cause  it  to  descend 
upon  the  earth.  Another  theory  viewed  it  as  sym- 
bolising the  conflict  between  light  and  darkness, 
between  day  and  night,  between  summer  and  winter. 
According  to  some  theories  the  marriage  of  the  god  of 
heaven  to  the  goddess  of  the  earth  was  the  ruling  idea ; 
according  to  others  all  the  gods  were  gods  of  the  sun 
and  moon ;  and  Professor  Max  Mliller  has  made  a  very 
able  and  learned  attempt  to  show  that  the  myths  of 
the  dawn  were  always  the  most  important,  or  at  least 
much  more  so  than  is  commonly  supposed.  At  the 
present  day  there  is  a  more  general  inclination  to 
combine  whatever  is  good  and  true  in  each  of  these 
antagonistic  theories,  a  movement  in  which  the  master 
of  mythological  science  just  mentioned  has  taken  the 
lead,  although  we  still  meet  with  advocates  of  a  kind 

^  Tiele,  Le  My  the  de  Kronos  :  Revue  de  I'Histoire  des  Religions, 
1886,  p.  9.  F.  Max  Miiller,  Physical  Religion  :  Gifford  Lectures,  ii. 
p.  131  ;  and  also  in  '  Contributions  to  the  Science  of  Mythology  * 
(passim,  v.  Index  "Gods  "). 


84  SCIENCE   OF  RELIGION. 

of  pass-key  theory,  or  single  explanation,  with  which 
they  seek  to  unlock  almost  every  myth,^  I  need 
hardly  say  that  I  have  no  faith  in  any  such  universal 
myth-opener,  and  that  I  am  not  disposed  to  join  any 
one  of  these  parties.  And  all  the  less  so  because  it 
seems  to  me  a  matter  of  subordinate  importance, 
though  not  of  indifference,  to  determine  the  precise 
natural  phenomenon  or  object  from  which  this  or  that 
myth  has  derived  its  origin.  Even  the  most  ancient 
interpreters  of  the  myths  disagreed  on  these  points, 
and  perhaps  from  the  very  outset  there  was  no  agree- 
ment. For  the  religious  man  the  chief  question  is, 
what  his  god  can  effect,  what  he  has  to  hope  or  to  fear 
from  him.  It  is  quite  possible  that  the  Babylonian 
Maruduk,  the  Vedic  Indra,  the  Germanic  Thor-Donar, 
and  even  the  Hellenic  Zeus,  were  originally  sun-gods ; 
but  in  the  eyes  of  their  worshippers  they  were  mainly 
the  triumphant  conquerors  of  the  powers  of  darkness, 
aridity,  and  winter.  The  names  of  most  of  the  gods 
are  so  ancient  that  they  cannot  now  be  interpreted 
with  any  certainty  by  means  of  the  known  forms  of 
language,  and  that  they  defy  all  the  re-agents  of 
scientific  etymology.  But  those  that  we  can  still 
interpret,  and  particularly  the  epithets  applied  to 
the  gods,  usually  denote  an  operation,  a  power,  or  a 
function.     In  short,  no  being  is  recognised  and  wor- 

^  Thus,  Ernst  Siecke,  Die  Liebesgeschichte  des  Himmels  :    Strass- 
burg,  1892  ;  and  Die  Urreligion  der  Indogermanen  :  Berlin,  1897. 


CONCEPTIONS   OF  GOB.  85 

shipped  as  divine  except  by  people  who  believe  it  to 
be  the  operative  power  in  some  natural  phenomenon ; 
and  when  religious  and  philosophical  development  has 
culminated  in  the  idea  of  an  only  god,  God  is  mainly 
regarded  as  the  Almighty,  who  creates,  maintains,  and 
governs  the  universe. 

Now  this  power  of  the  gods  is  always  deemed  a 
superhuman  power — superhuman,  but  not  supersensual 
or  supernatural.  In  a  more  advanced  stage  of  develop- 
ment a  distinction  may  be  drawn  between  the  sensual 
and  the  supersensual,  but  in  the  animistic  stage  no  such 
difference  is  known.  The  spirits  revered  by  uncivilised 
peoples  are  never  immaterial.  Nor  indeed  are  even 
the  highest  gods  in  the  polytheistic  religions  of 
antiquity.  But  they  are  all  superhuman,  at  least  in 
the  eyes  of  their  worshippers,  who  often  estimate  the 
value  of  human  beings  by  a  different  standard  from 
ours.  When  divine  beings  are  worshipped  in  the  form 
of  mountains,  trees,  or  animals  (which  entirely  differ 
in  kind  from  the  objects  known  as  fetishes),  it  is  only 
because  people  who  have  not  yet  awoke  to  full  self- 
consciousness  attribute  to  whatever  produces  a  strong 
impression  on  them  some  secret  power,  a  power  greater 
than  their  own,  or  because  they  admire  qualities  which 
they  themselves  either  lack  or  possess  to  a  very 
inferior  extent.  When  they  have  reached  a  higher 
stage  of  civilisation,  and  out  of  respect  for  tradition 
still  retain  the  old  animals  or  monsters  as  their  gods, 


86  SCIENCE  OF  RELIGION. 

then,  as  Herodotus  relates  of  the  Phoenicians,  they 
allege  as  their  reason  the  impropriety  of  making  their 
gods  like  men — an  explanation  devised  in  good  faith, 
though  of  course  an  afterthought,  in  order  to  account 
for  what  seems  strange  even  to  themselves.  And  even 
where  anthropomorphism  has  attained  full  sway,  where 
the  animals  come  to  be  merely  temporary  metamor- 
phisms,  being  usually  the  companions,  servants,  or 
symbols  of  the  deities,  and  where  the  deities  them- 
selves are  invariably  represented  in  human  form,  their 
worshippers  will  always  be  careful  to  express  their 
superhuman  character  in  some  way  or  other.  This  is 
sometimes  done  in  a  very  naive  manner.  The  Hindoo 
gods  (in  so  far  as  they  are  no  longer  therianthropic,. 
half-animal,  half-human]^  such  as  Ganes'a,  the  god  of 
wisdom,  with  his  elephant's  headjare  provided  with 
several  heads  and  pairs  of  arms.  The  Babylonian- 
Assyrian  have  two  pairs  of  wings.  The  Homeric  are 
of  gigantic  stature,  or  possess  a  voice  as  mighty  as  that 
of  ten  thousand  men ;  instead  of  human  blood,  a  fluid 
called  ichor,  the  blood  of  the  gods,  circulates  through 
their  veins ;  and  though  they  require  nourishment  like 
human  beings,  they  live  solely  on  ambrosia,  the  food 
of  the  immortals,  which  is  denied  to  men.  And  the 
power  these  deities  wield  is  not  merely  greater  than 
that  of  mortals,  but  differs  in  kind.  At  first  it  is 
generally  conceived  as  sorcery,  or  as  a  magical  power, 
from  which  the  idea  of  miraculous  power  is  developed, 


CONCEPTIONS  OF  GOD.  87 

a  power  which  is  not  bound  by  the  same  conditions  as 
human  power.  The  deity  simply  commands,  merely 
speaks,  "  and  it  is  done "  ;  the  divine  word  becomes 
the  great  creative  power.  And  the  belief  of  mono- 
theism, that  with  God  all  things  are  possible,  already 
exists  in  embryo  in  all  the  conceptions  of  divine  power 
formed  by  votaries  of  the  lower  nature-religions. 

And  so,  too,  the  conception  of  the  divine  omniscience 
must  have  lain  dormant  in  the  hearts  of  the  pious  long 
before  it  was  formulated  as  a  doctrine.  Odhinn's  ravens 
fly  forth  throughout  the  whole  world,  and  on  their  re- 
turn they  alight  on  his  shoulder  and  whisper  in  his  ear 
all  they  have  seen.  The  Vedic  Varuna  and  the  Persian 
Mithra  also  have  their  spies  {spas' as),  whom  nothing 
escapes.  Satan,  whom  the  author  of  the  Book  of  Job 
includes  among  the  Sons  of  Elohim,  scours  the  whole 
earth,  and  then  appears  before  His  throne  to  render 
his  report,  although  Yahve  already  knows  everything. 
Each  god  does  not  know  everything — for  that  would 
be  inconsistent  with  polytheism — but  the  gods  collec- 
tively know  everything,  while  from  the  great  heavenly 
god  of  Light  nothing  can  remain  hidden. 

With  the  doctrine  of  omniscience  is  closely  connected 
that  of  omnipresence.  The  numerous  gods  of  polythe- 
ism cannot  of  course  be  omnipresent.  Each  of  them 
has  his  own  domain,  to  which  his  power  is  usually 
restricted.  On  earth  each  of  them  has  one  or  more 
favourite  haunts,  while  in  heaven  he  possesses  his  own 


88  SCIENCE   OF  RELIGION. 

glorious  abode.  The  exuberant  oriental  imagination 
surpasses  itself  when  it  tries  to  describe  the  palaces  of 
the  Indian  Devas  and  the  Zarathushtrian  Yazatas.  The 
poets  of  the  Edda  mention  ten  heavenly  abodes  of  the 
Asas,  of  which  Odhinn's  Walhalla  is  the  chief,  and 
Baldur's  Breidhablik  is  the  purest.  The  homes  of  the 
Olympians  have  been  built  by  Hephaestus  round  the 
summit  of  Olympus,  on  which  Zeus  himself  is  en- 
throned. But  none  of  them  is  bound  to  a  fixed  abode. 
They  roam  wherever  they  please  with  marvellous 
rapidity.  With  holy  awe  the  pious  man  sometimes 
finds  his  god  close  to  him  when  he  supposed  him  far 
distant.  "  Surely,"  exclaims  Jacob  at  Bethel,  on 
awakening  from  his  dream,  "surely  Yahve  is  in  this 
place  ! "  The  fact  that  his  own  god  should  appear  to 
him,  at  a  place  where  a  different  local  god  was  wor- 
shipped, filled  his  heart  with  joy.  That  some  god  dwelt 
and  ruled  in  this  region,  as  in  every  region,  probably 
neither  he  nor  any  other  of  the  ancients  doubted  for 
a  moment.  What  in  monotheism  becomes  the  omni- 
presence of  a  single  god  is  in  polytheism  the  omni- 
presence of  the  divine  in  many  different  forms  and 
persons.  Wherever  one  may  be,  wherever  one  may 
go,  there  a  superhuman  power  works  and  reigns.  This 
belief  is  common  to  all  peoples  and  all  ages. 

As  the  aesthetic  sentiment  is  developed,  the  gods  are 
more  and  more  endowed  with  superhuman  beauty.  In 
the  plastic  representation  of  the  gods  the  Greeks  stood 


CONCEPTIONS   OF  GOD.  89 

pre-eminent.  Their  gods  have  human  forms,  but  they 
are  idealised  forms  of  masculine  and  feminine  beauty. 
Still  loftier  is  the  conception  of  a  divine  glory  which 
dazzles  poor  mortals,  a  glory  which  indeed  man  can- 
not behold  and  live.  The  prophet  to  whom  a  glimpse 
of  it  was  vouchsafed  had  to  cover  his  face,  and  durst 
not  look  up  until  Yahve  had  passed  by,  so  that  he  could 
only  see  the  skirts  of  the  divine  garment.  This  idea 
belongs  entirely  to  the  Semitic  conception  of  faith,  in 
which  God's  loftiness  stands  out  in  the  foreground  ;  and 
when  we  encounter  it  in  the  Greek  myth  of  Zeus  and 
Semele,  it  seems  unquestionably  to  be  one  of  those 
features  which  Hellenic  mythology  borrowed  from  the 
East.  But  the  needs  that  found  expression  in  these 
immortal  works  of  art  and  in  the  conceptions  of  the 
divine  glory  are  precisely  the  same  as  those  manifested 
in  childish  fashion  by  the  savage  who  bedecks  his  poor 
idols  with  gaudy  cloth  and  all  kinds  of  finery,  so  as 
to  render  them  glorious  in  his  eyes,  and  by  the  simple- 
minded  votary  of  Eome,  who  bedizens  his  Madonna 
with  gilded  crowns  and  showy  drapery. 

The  development  of  the  ethical  sentiment  is  a  very 
different  matter.  It  is  not  until  a  late  period  that  the 
religiously  disposed  man  strives  to  express  the  super- 
human character  of  his  gods  by  ascribing  to  them 
ethical  attributes.  They  become  the  vindicators  of 
law,  the  re  warders  of  virtue,  the  punishers  of  vice  : 
they   have   imposed   the   moral   law   on  mortals,  and 


90  SCIENCE  OF  RELIGION. 

require  them  to  observe  it ;  but  at  first  they  them- 
selves are  exalted  above  it.  A  god  is  never  bound  by 
the  obligations  he  has  imposed  upon  men.  He  acts 
according  to  his  good  pleasure — for  the  superhuman 
knows  no  limits.  This  is  the  ideal  of  the  undeveloped 
believer.  He  regards  the  moral  law  as  heteronomous, 
being  imposed  on  him  from  without,  and  as  a  collection 
of  commands  and  prohibitions  which  he  ought  to  obey, 
but  which  he  cannot  obey  without  denying  himself  and 
sacrificing  his  own  inclinations  and  desires.  It  stands 
to  reason,  he  thinks,  that  a  power  which  is  indepen- 
dent of  all  others  is  under  no  obligation  to  obey  the 
laws  which  it  imposes  upon  men.  But  when  man's 
ethical  consciousness  has  advanced  so  far  as  to  substi- 
tute the  autonomous  for  the  heteronomous  principle, 
and  when  he  has  learned  to  measure  human  worth  by 
an  ethical  standard,  he  can  no  longer  regard  beings, 
however  powerful  they  may  be,  as  exalted  above  him 
if  they  are  morally  his  inferiors.  The  conviction  thus 
ripens  within  him  that  the  moral  element  is  not  a 
mere  arbitrary  ordinance,  in  conflict  with  human 
nature,  but  is  a  revelation  of  his  own  inmost  being, 
and  must  for  that  very  reason  be  an  attribute  of  the 
deity  who  is  the  author  of  his  higher  nature.  He 
then  ceases  to  seek  for  the  superhuman  in  external 
splendour  and  glory,  or  merely  in  a  power  which  tran- 
scends that  of  man,  but  conceives  his  God  as  one  who 
possesses  in  perfection  all  the  moral  qualities  which  he 


CONCEPTIONS  OF  GOD.  91 

has  learned  to  appreciate  in  man  more  than  all  other 
endowments.  The  Unapproachable  then  becomes  the 
Holy  One,  and  justly  so,  because  "  He  is  of  purer  eyes 
than  to  behold  iniquity."  The  highest  power  then 
becomes  all-embracing  love.  And  so  he  deems  his 
God  to  be  in  blissful  possession  of  that  infinite  per- 
fection to  which  no  man  can  attain,  but  which  is  never- 
theless the  object  of  his  ceaseless  endeavour. 

We  are  now,  however,  confronted  with  a  question 
with  which  many  minds  are  always  busied.  How  can 
a  pure  and  perfect  world  be  the  origin,  or  (to  put  the 
question  in  a  personal  form)  how  can  a  perfect  and  at 
the  same  time  all-powerful  God  be  the  author,  of  a 
world  in  which  physical  and  moral  evil  are  so  pre- 
dominant ?  Polytheism  found  no  difficulty  in  answer- 
ing this  question.  The  world  of  gods  is  divided  into 
two  different  classes — the  beneficent  or  naturally  good 
gods,  and  the  gods  who  are  dreaded,  the  former  being 
the  givers  of  all  blessings,  and  the  latter  the  authors  of 
all  disasters,  of  death,  destruction,  and  all  evil;  and 
both  kinds  must  therefore  be  worshipped  in  order  to 
gain  their  favour  or  avert  their  wrath.  But  in  the 
ethical  religions  believers  could  no  longer  be  satisfied 
with  such  a  solution.  They  could  not  regard  evil 
spirits  as  worthy  of  adoration.  In  their  view  the 
two  classes  of  gods  become  two  hostile  camps.  On  the 
one  side  stood  the  good  God  with  his  satellites,  on  the 
other  the  realm  of  the  powers  of  darkness  and  destruc- 


92  SGIENGE  OF  RELIGION. 

tion,  of  sin  and  wickedness,  which  had  to  be  resisted 
and  slain  with  the  help  of  the  good  spirits.  Over 
against  Ormazd,  the  giver  of  all  good  (ddta  vanghvcim), 
is  placed  Ahriman,  who  is  full  of  death  {2:)ouTu-mahrka), 
and  over  against  the  immortal  benefactors  {amesha 
speiita)  and  the  adorable  ones  (yazata)  stand  the  daevas 
and  the  lying  spirits  (drujas).  This  is  the  doctrine  of 
the  Zarathushtrian  religion,  in  which  the  principle 
is  most  strictly  adhered  to.  But  even  there  people 
were  not  always  satisfied  with  a  God  who,  though 
indeed  higher  and  more  powerful  than  his  adversary, 
and  destined  ultimately  to  triumph  over  him,  had  to 
submit  for  a  time  at  least  to  the  withdrawal  of  a  great 
part  of  the  "  embodied  world,"  his  own  creation,  from 
his  jurisdiction.  The  theologians  came  to  the  rescue. 
They  exalted  an  abstract  idea,  Unending  Time  (zrvan 
akaranam),  to  the  rank  of  the  highest  god,  the  father 
of  both  Ahura  ^lazda  and  Angra-Mainyu,  although 
the  text  of  the  sacred  writings  on  which  they  relied 
merely  imports  that  Ahura  Mazda  "  created  in  unend- 
ing time."  This  doctrine,  though  regarded  as  heretical 
by  the  orthodox  Zarathushtrians,  was  for  a  time  offi- 
cially accepted  under  one  of  the  Sasanides,  but  was 
soon  afterwards  condemned.  An  abstraction  could  not 
long  remain  a  popular  god.  And  perhaps  it  was  felt 
that  the  difficulty  was  not  thereby  removed,  but  merely 
shifted.  Another  expedient  to  which  they  had  recourse 
was  the  idea  that  man  is  free,  but  that  he  has  abused 


CONCEPTIONS  OF  GOD.  93 

his  freedom,  and  that  for  this  abuse  he  has  been  pun- 
ished by  means  of  sickness  and  other  evils  inflicted 
by  Nature  herself  ;  but  they  overlooked  the  question 
whether  the  omnipotence  of  God  would  not  be  in- 
fringed by  such  freedom.  Others  have  denied  the 
absolute  nature  of  sin  (Pfleiderer),  and  have  repre- 
sented physical  evil  as  a  necessary  means  of  education, 
as  the  shadow  without  which  there  can  be  no  light.  It 
is  beyond  our  province  to  investigate  this  problem.  It 
suffices  for  us,  in  this  connection,  to  note  the  fact  that 
man's  religious  consciousness  has  invariably  caused  the 
rejection  of  every  system  which  limited  the  omnipotence 
of  God  in  order  that  His  holiness,  righteousness,  and 
love  might  be  preserved  intact.  A  perfect  solution  of 
the  problem  would  require  omniscience,  and  transcends 
the  human  mind.  But  for  the  pious  of  all  ages,  al- 
though they  are  fully  aware  that  they  are  confronted 
with  an  inexplicable  riddle,  the  answer  is  essentially 
the  same  as  that  given  in  Israel  in  ancient  times: 
"  God's  ways  are  higher  than  our  ways,  and  His 
thoughts  are  higher  than  our  thoughts ;  God  is  great, 
and  we  cannot  comprehend  Him."  Or,  to  express  this 
in  the  terms  we  have  already  employed  :  the  divine 
power  is  superhuman,  and  therefore  inscrutable. 

To  this  definition  of  gods  as  superhuman  powers  it 
will  perhaps  be  objected  that  it  is  imperfect,  and  that 
it  is  not  every  superhuman  power,  though  recognised 
as  such,  that  is  recognised  as  a  god.     Shall  we,  like 


94  SCIENCE  OF  RELIGION, 

Eauwenhoff,  for  example,  argue  as  follows  ? — "  No  one 
is  2i.  godi  jure  suo;  but  he  has  only  become  a  god  through 
the  deification  he  has  received  from  his  worshippers. 
Not  only  does  this  hold  true  of  the  first  time  when  a 
man  has  recognised  his  god  in  a  supposed  supersensual 
power,  but  it  always  continues  to  be  true,  and  is  indeed 
the  general  rule  in  all  subsequent  and  in  all  future 
development  of  religion.  To  be  a  power  of  nature 
or  to  be  a  spirit  is  not  yet  to  be  a  god.  Such  a  power 
only  becomes  a  god  when  it  is  worshipped.  Even  the 
most  primitive  religions  consist,  not  in  the  worship  of 
every  kind  of  natural  phenomenon  and  every  kind  of 
spirit,  but  they  invariably  select  one  or  more  of  these, 
to  the  exclusion  of  the  others,  and  promote  them  to 
the  rank  of  deities.  One  only  of  all  the  spirits  dwelling 
in  animals  is  elected  by  the  American  Totemist  to  be 
his  god;"  and  might  we  not  then  arrive  with  him  at 
the  conclusion  that  the  origin  of  religion  is  to  be 
explained  "  from  the  coincidence  of  the  moral  con- 
sciousness of  man  with  the  naturistic  or  animistic 
view  of  nature  ? "  ^  I  cannot  concur  in  this.  The 
proposition  that  no  one  is  a  god  jure  suo  rests,  if  I 
mistake  not,  on  a  confusion  of  special  conceptions  of 
belief  with  the  general  conception  of  a  god.  The  cause 
of  the  confusion  is,  that  we  generally  use  the  same 

^  Eauwenhoff:  'Wijsbegeerte van  den  Godsdienst,'  pp.  72,  73,  99.  I 
have  somewhat  condensed  the  author's  argument,  but  have  used  his 
own  words  as  far  as  possible. 


CONCEPTIONS  OF  GOD.  95 

word  for  both.  We  call  Zeus,  Wodan,  Indra,  Varuna, 
Brahma,  Vishnu,  and  Siva  gods,  although  they  are  in 
reality  only  the  special  conceptions  formed  by  different 
peoples  in  different  ages  of  their  highest  god.  It 
stands  to  reason  that  they  are  gods  only  to  those  who, 
I  do  not  say  worship  them,  but  who  believe  in  their 
existence  and  power,  and  that,  with  their  last  wor- 
shippers, they  have  lost,  or  will  lose,  their  dignity 
of  godhead.  The  only  question  that  concerns  us  is, 
what  in  all  these  changing  conceptions  is  abiding, 
what  men  in  all  ages  have  had  in  view  when  speaking 
of  "  God."  Moreover  it  is  not  because  it  is  worshipped 
that  a  power  of  nature,  or  power  of  any  description,  or 
a  spirit  of  whatever  kind,  becomes  a  god,  but  it  is 
worshipped  because  it  has  already  been  recognised  as 
a  god.  Nor  can  it  even  be  asserted  that,  in  the 
animistic  or  the  polytheistic  stage  of  religion,  persons 
or  communities  regard  those  superhuman  powers  which 
they  worship  as  the  only  gods  in  existence.  They 
admit  the  existence  and  the  dignity  of  many  others 
also  as  such.  When  they  enter  their  domain,  or  have 
reason  to  dread  their  power,  they  will  even  do  them 
homage.  When  they  learn  that  the  gods  of  their 
neighbours  are  very  wise,  and  are  thus  better  able 
to  help  them,  they  will  consult  their  oracles  and  offer 
them  costly  gifts.  Thus  Ahaziah,  King  of  Israel,  sent 
a  mission  to  Ba'al-zebub,  the  god  of  Ekron,  to  the  great 
indignation  of  the  prophet  of  Yahve.     So,  too,  will  an 


96  SCIENCE   OF  RELIGION. 

Asiatic  prince  beg  the  Egyptian  king,  son  of  the  Sun, 
for  the  loan  of  one  of  his  gods  in  order  to  cure  his 
daughter  of  her  sickness,  the  gods  of  his  own  land 
having  proved  unequal  to  the  task.  And  when  the 
mighty  conqueror  Sennacherib  (Sin-ahi-irba)  is  about 
to  organise  a  naval  expedition,  he  hastens  to  present 
rich  offerings  to  Ea,  god  of  the  sea,  though  on  his 
return  to  Nineveh  or  Kalach  he  would  certainly  have 
worshipped  none  but  Assur,  and  the  gods  who  had 
their  temples  there.  Can  we  therefore  say  that  Ea 
was  his  god  solely  during  the  time  when  he  did 
homage  to  him,  but  neither  before  nor  after  that 
time  ?  Why,  it  may  be  asked,  does  the  polytheist 
not  worship  all  the  gods  whose  power  he  admits  ? 
Simply  because  it  would  be  impossible.  On  the  other 
hand,  he  will  take  good  care  not  to  offend  them.  Like 
the  Hindoo,  he  will  not  neglect  to  invoke  the  Vis've 
devah,  or  "  all  the  gods,"  as  well  as  those  he  specially 
reveres ;  or,  like  the  Eoman,  after  having  named  his 
own  gods,  he  will  add :  "  Sive  quo  alio  nomine  te 
appellari  volueris  "  ;  or,  like  the  Athenian,  he  will  by 
way  of  precaution  erect  an  altar  to  the  Unknown  God. 
And  so,  too,  the  Totemist,  while  choosing  a  special 
tutelary  spirit,  just  as  you  or  I  might  choose  a 
particular  physician,  does  not  deny  the  existence  of 
others.  And  neither  Eedskin,  nor  Babylonian,  nor 
Assyrian,  who  speak  of  their  own  special  gods,  nor 
the    Pilrsee,   who    believes    that   every   one    has    his 


CONCEPTIONS  OF  GOD.  97 

Fravashi,  nor  the  Eoman,  who  sacrifices  to  his  own 
Lar  familiaris,  will  on  that  account  omit  to  serve  the 
gods  of  their  tribe  or  country.  How  divine  service 
originated  is  a  question  to  be  considered  at  a  later 
stage.  But  we  may  for  the  present  lay  it  down  as 
a  well-established  proposition,  that  the  religious  man 
in  general  regards  as  a  god  every  superhuman  power 
whose  existence  he  owns;  that  the  polytheist  recog- 
nises, besides  his  own  gods,  many  others  whom  he  has 
no  occasion,  or  is  not  bound,  to  worship ;  and  that  the 
monotheist  acknowledges  a  single  and  almighty  God, 
by  whatsoever  name  He  may  be  called. 

Is  it  necessary  to  add  to  our  definition,  that,  in  order 
to  stamp  a  superhuman  power  as  a  deity,  it  should  be 
worthy  of  adoration  ?  I  do  not  think  so.  I  am,  how- 
ever, far  from  maintaining  that  every  power  of  nature, 
as  such,  is  regarded  as  a  god,  even  by  the  least  cultured 
of  men.  Certainly  not  those  which  he  has  learned  to 
control.  When  he  has  grown  up  to  full  self-conscious- 
ness he  feels  that  he  is  superior  to  all  the  blind  powers 
of  nature,  though  he  is  physically  weaker  than  they. 
The  materialist,  who  sees  nothing  in  the  universe  but 
the  operation  of  such  powers,  takes  leave  of  religion 
altogether.  Men  worship  that  only  which  they  deem 
above  them.  Not  the  beast  of  prey,  whose  claws  make 
them  tremble,  nor  the  bloodthirsty  tyrant  who  per- 
secutes them,  but  those  beings  alone  whom  they  judge 
superior  to  man.      As  long  as  they  imagine  that   in 

VOL.  II.  G 


98  SCIENCE  OF  RELIGION. 

a  tree,  or  in  an  animal,  or  in  the  firmament  of  heaven 
dwells  a  spirit  mightier  than  their  own,  and  one  that 
can  therefore  influence  the  destiny  and  welfare  of 
themselves  and  their  families,  so  long  will  they 
worship  the  tree,  or  animal,  or  firmament,  or  rather 
the  spirits  residing  in  them.  But  as  soon  as  they 
become  conscious  of  the  superiority  of  the  human 
mind  they  will  cease  to  worship  these  objects.  As 
long  as  they  occupy  a  low  stage  of  ethical  develop- 
ment they  will  worship  even  evil  spirits,  whether 
injurious  to  man  or  not.  But  as  soon  as  they  have 
awoke  to  moral  consciousness,  they  will  contend 
against  these  evil  spirits,  with  the  aid  of  the  good 
divine  powers,  and  they  will  worship  them  no  longer. 
They  still  believe  in  their  power ;  but  it  is  not  a 
divine  power,  for  it  is  doomed  to  destruction — the 
power  of  goodness  and  truth  will  ultimately  triumph 
over  it.  The  power  of  the  evil  spirits  is  indeed 
greater  than  their  own,  but  not  superhuman,  although 
perhaps  we  may  call  it  supersensual.  The  Zara- 
thushtrian  erects  no  altars  to  Ahriman,  nor  does  the 
mediteval  Christian  build  chapels  for  Satan,  however 
much  they  may  dread  these  spirits.  The  Mohammedan 
casts  stones  at  Iblis,  and  our  Christian  forefathers 
delighted  in  popular  tales  in  which  the  devil  was 
tricked  or  held  up  to  derision.  But  to  a  power  which 
he  regards  as  superhuman  man  looks  up  with  awe,  and 
he  speaks  of  it  with  reverence. 


CONCEPTIONS  OF  GOD.  99 

We  thus  reach  the  conclusion,  that  men  of  all  ages 
have   conceived   the   divine  as  a  power  operating  in 
every  kind  of  natural  phenomenon,  as  supernatural,  not 
merely  in  the  sense  of  being  greater  than  human  power, 
but   as   being  bound  by   none   of   the  conditions,   and 
subject  to  none  of  the  limitations,  attached  to  human 
power.     Regarded,  in  the  earlier  stages  of  the  develop- 
ment of  belief,  as  a  magical  power  or  as  a  miraculous 
power  (for,  as  Goethe  has  said,  "  das  Wunder  ist  des 
Glaubens  liebstes  Kind"),  the  most  advanced  believers 
regard   it   as   the    mysterious    power    in    which    the 
ultimate  cause  of   the  world  of   phenomena  is  to  be 
sought ;  a  power  unlimited   and   unrestricted  in  time 
and    space,   a   power   immutable,   whatever   else    may 
change  or  perish.     It  is  merely  a  question  of  develop- 
ment, as  well  as  of  disposition,  whether  this  power  be 
distributed  among  many  persons  or  embraced  in  one 
alone.     But  it   is  always   the  highest  in  its  own  pro- 
vince, it  is  always  unique  of  its  kind  ;  and  even  where 
it  is  divided  among  many,  its  agency  is  everywhere : 
it  is  the  ultimate  cause  of  all  that  exists,  of  all  that 
happens.     The  world  of  the  divine,  as  men  thus  con- 
ceive it,  is  not  merely  higher  than,  but  different  from, 
our  world  of  natural  phenomena,  because  it  is  an  ideal 
world.     But  it  is  only  in  contrast  to  ours  in  so  far  as  it 
is  perfect  and  infinite,  while  ours  is  imperfect  and  finite. 
Our  next  lecture  will  be  devoted  to  an  examination 
of  the  relation  between  these  two  worlds.         > 


100 


LECTURE    V. 

THE   RELATIOXSHIP    BETWEEN   GOD   AND   MAN. 

At  our  previous  meetings  we  examined  one  of  the 
foundations  on  which  religion  rests,  or  perhaps  I 
should  rather  say  one  of  the  indispensable  elements 
in  which  religion  consists — I  mean  man's  belief  in  a 
superhuman  power  which  works  everywhere  and  in 
everything.  This  is  not  a  mere  philosophical  theory 
or  an  abstraction  designed  to  satisfy  man's  craving 
for  knowledge,  nor  is  it  a  purely  mental  attempt  to 
account  for  the  world  of  phenomena  we  see  around 
us — whether  that  world  be  the  whole  universe,  such 
as  we  conceive  it  to  be,  or  merely  that  limited  portion 
of  it  that  falls  within  the  ken  of  uncivilised  or  primi- 
tive man,  and  constitutes  his  whole  world — but  it  is 
a  religious  conviction,  that  is  to  say,  it  exerts  a  direct 
and  immediate  influence  on  man's  emotional  life.  For 
the  phenomena  which  the  religious  man  thus  accounts 
for  are  precisely  those  which  are  bound  up  with  his 
existence,  his  welfare,  and  his  whole  destiny ;  and  the 


RELATIONSHIP   BETWEEN   GOD   AND   MAN.     101 

conviction  that  they  reveal  to  him  a  superhuman  power 
at  once  awakens  in  him  a  corresponding  sentiment  of 
awe  and  veneration,  of  gratitude  and  trust,  towards 
that  power,  and  a  sense  of  his  obhgation  to  obey  and 
revere  it  above  all  others.  Without  this  belief  no  reli- 
gion can  possibly  exist.  It  is  the  fountainhead  of  all 
religions.  If  it  is  lost,  the  old  religious  institutions 
may  for  a  time  be  maintained,  and  the  performance  of 
the  old  religious  observances  may  for  a  time  be  ensured, 
by  the  force  of  habit  and  tradition,  but  the  life  of  such 
a  religion  is  extinct.  Just  as  the  machine  must  soon 
stop  when  its  motive  power  has  ceased  to  act,  although 
its  wheels  may  continue  idly  to  revolve  a  little  longer, 
so  must  such  a  religion  inevitably  perish.  A  God 
above  us — that  is  the  belief  without  which  no  religious 
life  is  possible. 

Does  this  imply  that  the  moment  we  feel  compelled 
to  reject  the  popular  notion  of  the  Divinity,  the  moment 
we  becfin  to  hesitate  to  discern  God,  with  reverential 
awe,  in  the  highly  anthropomorphised  image  which  is 
regarded  by  most  people  as  the  only  true  God,  we  must 
forthwith  renounce  religion  altogether  ?  Let  us  dis- 
tinctly understand  each  other.  It  is  never  a  single 
definite  conception,  as  such,  that  constitutes  the  foun- 
dation of  religion.  Conceptions  change  ;  the  imperfect 
are  superseded  by  perfect,  the  impure  by  the  pure,  the 
lower  by  the  higher ;  but  the  thing  that  abides,  that 
underlies  them  all,  is  the  one  idea  which  they  all  strive 


102  SCIENCE  OF  RELIGION. 

to  express  in  their  different  ways.  All  we  have  done, 
and  were  bound  to  do,  has  been  to  trace  out  and  estab- 
lish that  idea.  If  our  object  had  been  to  construct  a 
philosophical  system  of  religion,  we  should  now  have 
to  inquire  into  everything  that  is  involved  in  that  idea, 
or  that  of  necessity  flows  from  it,  into  the  primitive 
myths  and  the  later  dogmas,  such  as  those  of  the 
creation,  of  Providence,  and  of  the  government  of  the 
world,  in  which  the  idea  has  been  more  or  less  imper- 
fectly manifested.  We  should  have  to  test  the  dogmas 
by  the  idea  itself,  and  show  what  truth  they  contain, 
or  how  far  they  are  to  be  regarded  as  mere  imperfect 
human  allegories.  We  cannot,  however,  attempt  so 
great  a  task.  Our  object  is  solely  to  offer  you  an 
introduction  to  the  science  of  religion,  and  to  sketch 
its  elements,  while  in  this  ontological  part  of  our  course 
our  special  aim  is  to  discover  what  is  the  permanent 
element  in  the  multiplicity  of  changing  forms.  Yet 
there  is  one  side-issue  which  we  must  not  omit  to 
notice.  Belief  in  a  superhuman  power  is  a  very  posi- 
tive belief,  a  belief  in  one  or  more  actual  divine  beings. 
Now  people  sometimes  object  to  attribute  personality 
and  self-consciousness  to  the  Godhead,  as  importing  a 
humanising,  and  therefore  a  limitation  and  degradation, 
of  the  Deity.  But  remember  that  we  cannot  even 
speak  of  the  superhuman  except  after  the  analogy  of 
the  human,  or  form  any  conception  of  God  except  with 
the  aid  of  the  highest  conceptions  known  to  us,  which 


RELATIONSHIP   BETWEEN  GOD  AND  MAN.     103 

in  the  domain  of  man's  spiritual  life  are  his  personality 
and  his  self-consciousness.  One  thing  is  certain.  When 
devout  persons  necessarily  regard  their  God  as  a  super- 
human being,  He  cannot  be  less  than  man,  He  cannot 
be  unconscious  and  impersonal,  or  He  would  cease  to 
be  a  god  at  all,  and  to  be  worthy  of  adoration.  It  is 
beyond  our  province  to  inquire  how  far  a  philosophical 
system  might  be  built  upon  the  foundation  of  an  un- 
conscious and  impersonal  power,  but  no  religion  could 
exist  on  such  a  basis.  If  personality  and  self-conscious- 
ness be  terms  which  we  may  not  apply  to  the  Almighty 
without  derogation,  let  us  admit  that  no  human  lan- 
guage can  describe  His  being.  But  to  predicate  the 
contrary  of  Him  would  be  a  far  graver  derogation,  and 
would  be  no  better  than  atheism.  That  "  God  is  a 
Spirit"  is,  in  brief,  the  creed  of  man  throughout  all 
ages ;  and  religious  man  feels  the  need  of  ascribing  to 
his  God  in  perfection  all  the  attributes  he  has  learned 
to  regard  as  the  highest  and  noblest  in  his  own 
spirit. 

And  all  the  more  so  because  no  religion  is  possible 
unless  man  feels  that  he  is  related  to  God.  And  this 
naturally  leads  us  to  consider  the  other  essential  of 
religion,  which  is  to  be  the  subject  of  our  studies 
to-day. 

Not  only  that  "  God  is  above  us,"  but  also  that  "  God 
is  in  us,"  is  a  belief  common  to  all  religions.  It  is 
probably  unnecessary  to  prove,  nor  can  it  indeed  be 


104  SCIENCE   OF  RELIGION. 

disputed,  that  this  idea  attained  full  development  in 
the  earliest  stage  of  Christianity.  The  religion  which 
regards  God  as  the  Father  of  all,  and  all  men  as  His 
children,  thus  teaches  the  closest  relationship  between 
God  and  man ;  and  this  is  precisely  the  doctrine  that 
underlies  the  whole  of  the  Gospel  preaching.  How 
this  doctrine  afterwards  developed  into  the  doctrines 
of  the  God-Man  and  the  Trinity  we  may  assume  to  be 
sufficiently  well  known  to  all.  Our  task  is  merely  to 
show  how  this  idea  has  found  expression  everywhere 
and  in  all  ages,  although  in  widely  differing  concep- 
tions, myths,  emblems,  and  symbolic  observances,  and 
to  trace  its  source  back  to  the  simplest  forms  of  re- 
ligious worship. 

You  will  remember  that  we  have  divided  the  chief 
religions  of  antiquity  into  two  categories,  according  as 
the  idea  of  Giod's  supremacy  over  the  world  and  man, 
or  man's  relationship  with  God,  has  been  placed  in  the 
foreground  and  predominantly  developed.  The  first 
category  I  called  the  theocratic,  in  which  the  deity 
stands  forth  chiefly  as  a  ruler  and  a  king,  and  the 
second  the  theanthroinc,  which  mainly  emphasises  the 
unity  of  God  and  man.  That  the  latter  should  lay  the 
chief  stress  upon  the  religious  anthropological  principle 
was  of  course  to  be  expected.  But  this  principle  is  by 
no  means  lacking,  and  is  sometimes  very  distinctly 
enunciated,  in  the  theocratic  religions  also.  Does  not 
the  Hebrew — whose  religion  may  be  taken  as  one  of 


RELATIONSHIP  BETJVEEX  GOD  AND  MAN.     105 

the  most  pronounced  types  of  this  class — regard  man 
as  created  in  God's  own  ima^e,  and  did  not  Yahve 
Elohim  breathe  his  divine  breath  into  the  nostrils  of 
this  his  latest  creation  ?  Was  it  not  recorded  that 
both  the  patriarch  Abraham  and  the  prophet  Moses 
communed  as  familiarly  with  God  as  men  with  their 
friends,  and  that  Israel  actually  wrestled  with  Him 
and  overcame  Him  ?  Was  it  not  vouchsafed  to  Elijah 
to  obtain  a  glimpse  of  Yahve's  glory,  and  was  he  not 
taken  up  to  Him  in  the  chariot  of  fire  ?  And  although 
the  Psalmist  asks,  "  What  is  man  that  Thou  art  mindful 
of  him,  and  the  son  of  man  that  Thou  visitest  him  ? " 
yet  he  immediately  adds,  "  Thou  hast  made  him  a  little 
lower  than  the  angels  "  (i.e.,  the  "  Elohim,"  or  gods).  In 
the  prophets,  in  the  sacred  singers,  and  even  in  the  cun- 
ning artificers,  the  divine  Spirit  was  believed  to  dwell 
and  to  work,  for  a  time  at  least ;  and  the  prophet 
Jeremiah  even  looked  forward  to  a  time  when  all 
mankind  should  partake  of  this  inspiration.  These 
are  surely  sufficient  proofs  that  the  idea  of  God's  spirit 
dwelling  in  man  was  by  no  means  foreign  to  this  most 
theocratic  of  all  the  religions  of  antiquity. 

In  the  cognate  theocratic  religions  of  Western  Asia 
the  world  of  the  gods  and  that  of  man  are  less  strongly 
contrasted  than  in  the  Hebrew ;  and  the  older  the  re- 
ligions are,  or  the  .earlier  developed,  the  less  marked  is 
the  contrast.  In  the  Babylonian  religion,  for  example, 
we  meet  with  a  legend  analogous  to  the  narrative  in 


106  SCIENCE   OF  RELIGION. 

the  second  chapter  of  Genesis.  Bel — that  is  in  this 
case  Maruduk,  the  creator  —  is  here  represented  as 
making  men  of  clay  mixed  with  his  own  blood,  a 
legend  whose  symbolical  signification  is  obvious.  Here, 
too,  the  legends  mention  a  marriage  between  a  deity 
and  a  mortal,  and  in  the  narrative  of  the  Deluge  men 
are  regarded  as  the  children  of  Ishtar ;  while  not  only 
the  king,  who  in  the  earliest  times  was  even  wor- 
shipped as  a  divine  being,  but  every  pious  man,  is 
spoken  of  as  "a  son  of  his  god"  (aUu  ilisu).  This 
idea  of  regardinsj  the  relation  between  the  theocratic 
god  and  his  people  as  a  nuptial  tie  is  also,  as  you 
will  remember,  not  unfamiliar  to  the  prophets  of 
Israel. 

In  the  Egyptian  religion,  which,  like  the  ancient 
Babylonian  before  it  was  modified  by  Semitic  influ- 
ence, belonged  to  a  very  early  stage  of  religious  de- 
velopment, we  find  the  two  ideas  of  "  the  deity  as  a 
superhuman  power "  and  of  "  man  as  related  to  the 
deity,"  existing  side  by  side,  unsophisticated  and  un- 
reconciled. Before  the  time  of  Menes,  who  is  supposed 
to  be  the  earliest  historical  king,  the  gods  themselves 
ruled  on  earth  in  successive  dynasties,  and  every  sub- 
sequent human  king  was  regarded  as  a  son  of  the 
Sun,  born  into  the  world  by  the  great  Mother-goddess. 
When  men  were  created  by  the  sun-god  Ea,  the  hidden 
sun-god  Tum  gave  them  a  soul  like  his  own.  Every 
dead   man,  provided   only  he  is  in  possession   of  the 


RELATIONSHIP  BETWEEN  GOD  AND  MAN.     107 

magic  texts,  becomes  in  the  lower  world  Osiris  him- 
self, and  after  he  has  in  that  shape  triumphed  over 
the  powers  of  darkness  and  death,  he  is  permitted  to 
go  forth  into  day  in  the  train  of  the  sun-god  Ea  and 
to  navigate  the  heavenly  waters  in  the  boat  of  the 
sun.  Even  the  living,  by  dint  of  reciting  the  magical 
books  destined  for  the  purpose,  may  assume  the  form 
of  gods,  and  as  such  may  overcome  the  hostile  powers 
which  threaten  them  on  earth.  Famous  kings  even 
have  their  own  temples  and  priesthood,  and  their 
worship  continues  in  vogue  for  ages  in  spite  of  the 
changes  of  dynasty.  And  not  only  they,  but  every 
one  who  was  in  a  position  to  found  for  himself  a  tomb, 
or  everlasting  home,  was  honoured  by  his  successors 
with  gifts  and  sacrifices  in  the  chapel  connected  with 
it.  It  is  well  known  how  punctiliously  the  Chinese 
observed  similar  duties,  during  the  period  prior  to 
that  of  Kong-tse,  when  their  religion  occupied  the 
same  plane  of  development  as  that  of  the  Egyptians, 
and  what  a  prominent  place  they  gave  to  the  wor- 
ship of  deceased  ancestors,  so  that  we  might  describe 
their  religion  as  anthropocentric,  as  being  one  in  which 
the  souls  of  men  occupied  an  intermediate  place 
between  the  heavenly  and  the  earthly  spirits. 

In  the  case  of  the  theanthropic  religions  it  is  un- 
necessary to  enter  into  matters  of  detail.  Their  general 
character  implies  that  they  lay  the  chief  stress  upon 
man's  relationship  with  God.      In  them  there  exists 


108  SCIENCE   OF  RELIGION. 

no  sharp  line  of  demarcation  between  the  human  and 
the  divine.  The  world  of  the  gods  and  that  of  man 
coalesce.  Gods  become  men  without  losing  their 
dignity,  while  men  are  elevated  to  the  rank  of  gods. 
In  the  course  of  the  one-sided  development  of  these 
religions — as,  for  example,  in  the  latest  Yedic  period — 
the  world  of  the  gods  sometimes  becomes  a  kind  of 
aristocracy,  which  holds  aloof  from  such  i)arvenv.s  as 
those  deified  sorcerers,  the  Ebhus,  as  being  still  tainted 
with  a  human  odour,  while  it  cannot  deny  them 
their  right  to  receive  sacrifices.  "Were  I,  however,  to 
pursue  this  theme  further,  I  should  have  to  repeat 
much  of  what  I  have  already  said  in  my  description 
of  the  theanthropic  religions.  To  that  description, 
therefore,  I  beg  to  refer  you. 

But  with  reg^ard  to  the  lower  nature  -  relictions  I 
should  like  to  say  a  word.  In  these,  of  course,  every- 
thing is  magical.  By  this  magical  power  the  Shaman 
in  his  ecstasy  ascends  to  heaven,  or  descends  to  the 
subterranean  spirits.  But  this  magical  power  is  pos- 
sessed by  him  in  common  with  the  higher  spirits,  and 
does  not  difler  from  theirs.  In  some  cases  there  is 
formed  an  aristocracy,  or  superior  caste,  to  which  the 
rank,  the  honours,  and  the  prerogatives  of  the  gods 
are  conceded,  and  which  forms  a  transition  from  man 
to  the  higher  beings.  In  the  religious  observances 
the  magician-priests  entirely  supersede  the  gods  and 
assume   their   forms.      The    founder    of    the    race    is 


RELATIONSHIP  BETWEEN  GOD  AND  MAN.     109 

usually  a  son  of  the  chief  god,  born  supernaturally,  or 
is  the  deity  himself.  And  here,  too,  the  dead  are  in- 
variably regarded  as  having  been  admitted  to  the  order 
of  spirits,  and  their  souls  are  worshipped  as  spirits. 

There  are  two  widely  diffused  groups,  partly  of 
myths  and  partly  of  legends,  which  owe  their  origin 
to  the  fundamental  idea  with  which  we  are  now  deal- 
ing. They  occur  among  peoples  of  every  rank  —  at 
one  time  as  childish  tales,  at  another  in  the  form  of 
beautiful  poetry.  1  allude  to  the  representations  of 
Paradise  and  the  predictions  of  a  glorious  future  for 
mankind  upon  earth.  These  are  complementary  to 
each  other,  and  the  latter  may  even  be  said  to  be 
postulated  by  the  former,  although  in  many  cases,  as 
in  the  Old  Testament,  the  legends  of  Paradise  are  alone 
preserved,  while  the  images  of  a  blissful  future  are  con- 
verted into  higher  ethical  expectations.  Pure  and  un- 
blemished, according  to  the  Hebrew  tradition,  our  first 
parents  roamed  at  large  in  the  garden  belonging  to 
Yahve's  ow^n  dwelling,  where  the  Deity  himself  walked 
to  enjoy  the  cool  of  the  evening.  As  yet  they  were  tor- 
mented by  no  cares,  they  were  disquieted  by  no  desires ; 
as  yet  they  were  exempt  from  the  obligation  to  labour 
in  the  sweat  of  their  brows,  and  from  gloomy  forebodings 
of  death.  Such  is  the  narrative  of  the  Book  of  Genesis. 
During  the  thousand  years'  reign  of  Yima,  as  the  Avesta 
informs  us,  men  lived  on  earth  in  perfect  happiness, 
and  —  accordinsf   to   some    accounts,  while  death  was 


110  SCIENCE   OF  RELIGION. 

unknown — the  human  race  increased  continuously,  and 
the  earth  had  repeatedly  to  be  enlarged.  Sick  and 
infirm  persons,  liars  and  evil-doers,  were  as  yet  un- 
known;  as  yet  Angra  -  Mainyu,  the  Evil  One,  was 
powerless.  Life  was  supremely  happy.  Of  each  pair, 
once  every  forty  years,  was  born  another  pair.  And 
when  the  overwhelming  and  devastating  winter,  which 
in  the  Zarathushtrian  legends  takes  the  place  of  the 
Delufje,  threatened  man  with  destruction,  Yima,  warned 
by  Ahura  Mazda,  and  by  his  command,  constructed  a 
vairt  or  enclosure,  which  protected  his  first  human  race 
against  the  impending  catastrophe,  and  enabled  them 
to  continue  their  blissful  existence  undisturbed.^  In 
the  Bundahish,  the  more  recent  sacred  book  of  the 
Zarathushtrians,  which,  however,  contains  many  ancient 
elements,  there  also  occurs  a  tradition  concerning  the 
first  human  pair  which  is  very  analogous  to  the  narra- 
tive of  the  second  and  third  chapters  of  Genesis, 
although  differing  from  it  in  details.  The  Greeks, 
too,  used  to  speak  of  a  golden  age,  in  which  men 
still  lived  innocently,  and  therefore  happily,  but  which 
was  soon  succeeded  by  other  ages  marked  by  a  con- 
stant decline.     For  all  these  beautiful   dreams  belong 

1  Compare  the  later  form  of  this  tradition  in  "  Dina-i-Mai-nog-i- 
Khirad,"  xxvii.  24,  'Sacred  Books  of  the  East,'  vol.  xxiv.  (West),  p. 
59,  and  its  adaptation  to  the  ancestral  home  of  the  Aryans  in 
Minokhard,  xliv.  24,  in  Darmesteter's  Zend-Avesta,  ii.  p.  30,  note 
64.  My  version  of  the  tradition  deviates  slightly  from  the  text,  as 
I  have  tried  to  give  it  the  form  I  believe  it  to  have  had  before  its 
Zarathushtrian  modification. 


RELATIONSHIP  BETWEEN   GOD   AND  MAN.     Ill 

to  a  past  for  ever  ended.  Paradise  has  been  lost, 
and  may  never  again  be  entered  by  man.  Man,  the 
Son  of  the  gods,  and  once  privileged  to  live  in  prox- 
imity to  the  deity,  has  fallen  from  his  high  estate, 
chiefly  through  his  own  fault  and  through  disobedience 
to  the  divine  commands.  The  divine  image  has  be- 
come faint,  if  not  entirely  effaced.  Man  must  now 
maintain  his  life  by  means  of  toilsome  labour.  He 
must  battle  against  disease  and  disaster ;  few  are  his 
days  and  full  of  woe.  The  "  afterthought "  of  Epime- 
theus  has  frustrated  the  wise  "  forethought  "  of 
Prometheus.  And  at  the  bottom  of  Pandora's  box — 
that  fateful  gift  of  the  gods,  from  which  a  host  of 
evils  and  sufferings  escaped  to  overspread  the  whole 
earth — hope  alone  remains  behind. 

Yet  a  hope  not  entirely  vain.  For  hope  is  too  deeply 
rooted  in  the  human  heart  to  admit  of  the  general  ac- 
ceptance of  such  a  pessimistic  view  as  that  indicated  by 
the  Greek  myth.  The  beautiful  pictures  of  an  irrev- 
ocable past  are  transferred  to  the  future.  Hope's 
anticipations  are  now  of  two  kinds,  earthly  and 
heavenly.  People  who  cherish  hopes  of  the  earthly 
kind  dream,  like  the  ancient  Germans,  of  a  new  earth 
purified  by  fire,  an  earth  purged  of  all  evil,  a  kind  of 
second  Paradise,  where  mankind,  likewise  regenerated 
by  fire,  will  live  happily  in  the  society  of  the  best  of  the 
gods.  Such  was  the  hope  of  the  Greek,  when  the  sway 
of    Zeus   and   the    Olympians    should    once  be  ended. 


112  SCIENCE  OF  RELIGION. 

Prometheus  would  be  unfettered,  and  mankind  would 
be  delivered  from  all  its  miseries.  Such  more  especially 
was  the  hope  of  the  devout  Parsee.  During  the  thou- 
sand years'  reign  of  Hushedarmah,  which  was  to  precede 
the  advent  of  the  Saviour  Soshyans,  men  were  gradually 
to  return  to  the  sinless  state  of  the  first  human  pair, 
and  during  the  last  ten  years  they  were  even  to  abstain 
entirely  from  food  and  yet  live.  Then  comes  the  Ee- 
deemer.  All  the  dead,  from  Gayomard,  the  protoplast, 
and  from  Mashya  and  Mashyoi,  the  first  human  pair, 
onwards,  are  raised,  and  the  righteous  and  the  wicked 
are  separated.  The  earth  is  burnt  up,  and  in  the  ocean 
of  molten  metal  which  overflows  its  whole  surface  all 
are  purified,  the  wicked  only  after  suffering  terrible 
tortures,  and  the  righteous  after  experiencing  merely  a 
pleasant  warmth.  All  then  receive  from  Soshyans  a 
food  which  renders  them  immortal.  The  evil  spirits 
are  conquered  and  slain,  or  driven  unresisting  into 
outer  darkness.  Even  hell  itself  is  purified  and  added 
to  the  earth ;  and  in  this  enlarged  world,  where  there 
will  be  no  more  ice  and  no  more  mountains,  men  are  to 
be  immortal,  and  to  live  for  ever  united  with  their 
families  and  relations,  but  without  further  offspring,  in 
pure  and  peaceful  bliss.^     We  only  learn  these  concep- 

^  See  Bundahish  xxx.,  'Sacred  Books  of  the  East'  v.  (West),  pp. 
120-130.  According  to  the  Shayast-la-Shayast,  xvii.,  7,  ib.,  p.  384 
seq..  those  who  have  committed  heinous  sins,  or  have  practised  heretical 
rites,  are  not  to  be  raised  from  the  dead,  for  they  have  already  passed 
over  to  the  Daevas.  This  modification  of  the  popular  creed  was  obvi- 
ously made  by  the  theologians. 


RELATIONSHIP  BETWEEN   GOD  AND  MAN.     113 

tions  from  very  late  sources,  but  even  in  the  earliest 
documents  they  are  alluded  to  as  belonging  to  an 
already  existing  popular  creed.  The  ideal  of  the  earliest 
Zarathushtrian  prophets  of  salvation  was  much  more 
sober  and  ethical,  and  consisted  in  the  triumphant 
supremacy  of  the  good  God  over  all  men,  an  ideal  more 
closely  approaching  the  expectations  of  the  prophets  of 
Israel,  of  which  the  first  preaching  of  the  Gospel  formed 
the  fulfilment. 

But  alongside  of  these  representations  of  a  future 
state  of  bliss  on  earth  there  often  occur,  in  the  same 
religion,  others  of  a  different  character,  which  however 
rather  supplement  than  exclude  them,  and  which  relate 
to  the  fate  of  men  after  death.  Thus  the  Greeks  had 
their  Elysian  fields,  destined  for  heroes  alone ;  the 
Scandinavians  had  their  Valholl  and  Folkvang,  where 
the  warriors  who  fell  in  battle  banqueted  with  Odhin 
and  Freya ;  and  the  Zarathushtrians  their  Garodmana, 
the  abode  of  Ahura  Mazda  and  his  satellites,  connected 
with  earth  by  a  bridge  which  for  the  righteous  is  broad 
and  commodious,  but  for  the  wicked  sharp  as  a  razor,  so 
that  they  inevitably  tumble  off  it  into  hell.  I  cite  these 
examples  only  because  they  relate  to  the  peoples  whose 
belief  in  a  regeneration  of  mankind  I  have  already 
mentioned.  But  there  are  thousands  of  other  forms 
which  the  belief  in  immortality  assumes,  and  which  it 
would  be  impossible  even  to  name  at  present.  Suffice 
it  to  say   that  it    occurs   everywhere  and  among  all 

VOL.  II.  H 


114  SCIENCE  OF  RELIGION. 

peoples,  whatever  be  their  stage  of  progress,  and  wher- 
ever it  has  not  been  as  yet  undermined  by  any  philo- 
sophic doubts,  or  thrust  into  the  background  by  other 
causes,  and  that  in  every  case  it  is  found  in  connection 
with  religion.  It  may  possibly  have  sprung  up  inde- 
pendently, and  quite  apart  from  religious  motives  (a 
matter  which  we  cannot  now  investigate) ;  it  seems 
certain,  however,  that  it  did  not  spring  from  the  senti- 
ment of  man's  relationship  with  God,  but  that  both 
have  the  same  origin,  while  the  belief  in  immortality, 
once  brought  into  connection  with  religion,  usually  takes 
the  form  of  a  union  with  the  deity,  or  at  least  of  an 
entrance  into  the  world  of  the  gods  and  a  participation 
in  their  society.  This  is  most  apparent  in  the  Egyptian 
religion,  in  which  this  very  doctrine  is  elaborated  with 
special  predilection.  That  this  view  was  practically 
universal  we  learn  from  the  worship  of  the  dead,  of 
which  we  have  already  spoken.  The  Babylonian  legend 
of  Ishtar's  descent  into  hell  depicts  in  sombre  colours 
the  "land  whence  no  man  returns"  {irsit  Id  tared), 
where  the  dreaded  Allat  rules  over  the  dead  and  dis- 
penses all  kinds  of  torture  ;  but  at  the  same  time  it  pic- 
tures in  words  and  images  a  state  of  happiness  in  which 
the  pious  man  sits  down  with  his  God  under  the  tree 
of  life.  We  meet  with  both  types  almost  everywhere. 
And  as  soon  as  more  advanced  moral  sentiment  asserts 
itself,  and  the  idea  of  retribution  has  been  combined 
with  that  of  a  future  existence,  the  lower  world,  once 


RELATIONSHIP  BETWEEN   GOD  AND  MAN.     115 

the  destination  of  almost  all  the  dead,  is  converted  into 
a  place  of  punishment  and  torment,  while  heavenly 
bliss  is  awarded  to  the  pious  alone.  For  it  is  the 
general  belief  of  all  peoples  that  every  man  goes  to  his 
own  proper  place ;  the  warriors  who  have  fallen  in 
battle  enter  the  abode  of  the  hero-gods ;  Herakles,  the 
mighty  hero,  who  spent  a  life  of  toil  and  conflict  in  the 
service  of  humanity,  is  received  into  Olympus ;  Enoch, 
Moses,  and  Elijah,  God's  chosen  friends,  instead  of  de- 
scending into  the  sombre  lower  regions,  are  taken  up 
directly  to  Him ;  and  (when  the  ethical  idea  has 
effectually  asserted  its  influence)  the  pious  go  to  Him 
whom  they  have  served  faithfully,  while  the  godless, 
who  have  forsaken  their  god  and  his  commandments, 
are  consigned  to  the  powers  of  darkness  to  be  punished 
as  they  have  deserved, 

No  one  will  deny  that  the  idea  of  relationship  with 
God  is  but  imperfectly  expressed  in  all  these  images, 
and  that  they  are  but  attempts  to  give  it  shape ;  yet 
the  religious  thought  that  underlies  them  is  that  man 
"is  of  God,  and  through  God,  and  to  God,"  and  is  des- 
tined at  last  to  be  reunited  with  Him. 

But  poetic  imagination  could  not  rest  satisfied  until  it 
had  found  a  more  concrete  form  for  this  religious  con- 
ception. Its  supreme  effort  accordingly  finds  expres- 
sion in  the  belief  in  a  Mediator — that  is,  as  Pfleiderer  \ 
has  aptly  described  slich  a  being,  "  the  combination  of 
the  divine  with  the  human  into  a  personal  unity,  in    / 


116  SCIENCE  OF  RELIGION. 

external  objectivity."  However  much  mortal  man  may 
be  conscious  of  the  divine  within  him,  God  and  man 
ever  present  the  contrast  of  Infinite  and  Finite,  of  the 
perfect  and  the  imperfect.  Now,  as  experience,  progress 
in  self-knowledge,  and  the  development  of  mortal  con- 
sciousness gradually  beget  and  confirm  in  man  the  con- 
viction that  he  answers  but  poorly  to  his  high  lineage 
and  destiny,  and  as,  on  the  other  hand,  religious  thought 
gradually  creates  a  loftier  conception  of  the  Deity,  the 
gulf  between  the  two  ever  widens,  and  it  becomes  increas- 
ingly difficult  to  maintain  the  former  root-idea  without 
prejudiciug  the  latter.  And  he  accordingly  fills  up  the 
gulf  with  all  kinds  of  intermediate  beings.  On  earth 
he  fills  it  with  persons  of  specially  religious  character, 
with  prophets,  priests,  teachers,  leaders,  and  reformers, 
whom  his  imagination  glorifies,  and  to  whom  he  often 
ascribes  supernatural  holiness.  In  heaven,  or  at  least 
in  the  region  between  heaven  and  earth,  he  fills  the 
gulf  with  the  ministers  and  messengers  of  God,  such  as 
the  Babylonian  Nusku,  the  Indian  Agni  Naras'ansa,  the 
Avestic  Sraosha,  the  Greek  Hermes,  or  such  as  the 
Angels  and  Sons  of  God, — the  Hebrew  Male'aktm  and 
Bne  Elohim,  by  means  of  whom  the  supreme  deity  com- 
munes with  men  ;  he  fills  it  too  with  inferior  gods,  who 
are  less  remote  from  man,  and  whose  intercession  with 
the  most  high  he  invokes.  But  while  the  first  of  these 
classes  consists  of  men  more  gifted  than  their  fellows,  or 
raised  above  them  by  divine  consecration  and  unction, 


RELATIONSHIP  BETWEEN   GOD  AND  MAN.     117 

or  possessed  of  extraordinary  knowledge,  yet  they  are  not 
one  with  God,  nor  have  they,  as  a  rule,  a  definite  divine 
origin  assigned  to  them.  The  second  order  of  beings,  on 
the  other  hand,  is  not  human,  but  superhuman.  In  these 
orders,  the  lower  divine  and  the  higher  human  come 
very  nearly  into  contact,  so  that  the  gulf  is  to  some 
extent  filled  up,  although  not  entirely  closed.  This  can 
only  be  accomplished  by  the  conception  of  a  being  who 
partakes  of  both  natures  alike,  who  is  at  once  God  and 
man,  a  true  son  of  God  and  true  son  of  man.  By  means 
of  such  a  bold  flight  of  imagination  the  conflicting 
natures  are  reconciled,  the  heterogeneous  elements 
coalesce  in  a  unity. 

The  belief  in  Mediators  between  the  divine  world 
and  the  human,  who  belong  to  both  alike,  is  a  very 
general  one,  and  is  manifested  in  many  different  forms. 
In  some  cases  they  are  gods  who  descend  to  earth  and 
become  men,  or  for  a  time  at  least  associate  as  men 
with  men ;  as  Apollo  with  Admetus ;  or  like  the 
numerous  Avataras  of  the  god  Vishnu,  including  even 
the  Buddha,  and  among  whom  Krshna  occupied  the 
foremost  rank ;  or  like  the  Scandinavian  god  Heimdall, 
who  by  his  union  with  three  earthly  wives  became  the 
father  of  the  three  estates  of  nobles,  freemen,  and  serfs, 
and  whose  posterity  thus  in  a  very  special  manner 
illustrates  the  kinship  between  gods  and  men.  In 
other  cases  these  Mediators  are  demi-gods,  men  born  of 
a  union  between  gods  and  mortals,  such  as  Herakles, 


118  SCIENCE   OF  RELIGION. 

Bellerophon,  Perseus,  Theseus,  and  Dionysus,  who  were 
believed  to  have  been  actually  born  on  earth,  though 
of  divine  origin,  and  to  have  lived  and  w^orked  on  earth 
— Heroes,  that  is,  Saviours  and  Eedeemers,  as  they  were 
called — and  some  of  whom,  either  as  a  reward  for  their 
achievements,  or  merely  on  account  of  their  divine 
lineage,  were  raised  to  the  rank  of  gods  and  worshipped 
as  such.  And  often  they  are  actual  historical  person- 
ages, glorified  and  afterwards  deified  by  a  grateful  pos- 
terity. Such  were  a  number  of  kings,  like  the  ancient 
Sargon  of  Agade  in  Babylonia,  and  sages,  like  Lao-tse 
and  Kong-tse  in  China,  and,  above  all,  reformers  whose 
work  and  preaching  called  a  new  religion  into  life,  like 
Mahavira  the  Jina,  Gautama  the  Buddha,  and  Zara- 
thushtra  Spitama,  after  whom  the  Jainas,  the  Buddhists, 
and  the  Zarathushtrians  are  respectively  named.  The 
history  of  most  of  these  personages  consists  so  largely, 
if  not  entirely,  of  myths,  chiefly  myths  of  the  sun-gods 
adapted  to  them,  that  it  has  even  been  doubted  whether 
they  ever  existed  at  all.  But  such  an  inference  is  un- 
warrantable. Once  they  were  raised  to  the  rank  of 
gods  or  adorable  beings,  the  actual  memorials  of  their 
lives,  so  far  as  they  still  existed,  would  thenceforth  be 
of  little  use,  or  would  at  least  seem  inadequate,  and  had 
therefore  to  be  replaced  or  supplemented  by  miraculous 
tales.  That  such  tales,  borrowed  mostly  from  the 
Mithras  legend,  were  transferred  to  Christ  also,  chiefly 
in  the  apocryphal  Gospels  and  the  Golden  Legend,  will 


RELATIONSHIP   BETWEEN   GOD  AND   MAN     119 

not  be  denied  even  by  those  who  are  disposed  to  accept 
as  pure  history  the  whole  of  the  narrative  of  the  can- 
onical Gospels.  It  is,  however,  certain  that  the  dogma 
of  the  Son  of  God,  true  God  and  true  man,  which 
attained  its  highest  mystic  expression  in  the  dogma  of 
the  Trinity,  has  been  throughout  long  ages  one  of  the 
chief  corner-stones  of  the  creed  of  the  great  majority  of 
Christians,  however  different  their  religious  views  might 
be  in  other  respects.  Although  unable  to  withstand  the 
searching  scrutiny  of  sober,  rational  logic,  owing  to  the 
(from  a  purely  rationalistic  standpoint)  irreconcilable 
contradiction  of  the  two  terms  which  compose  the  ex- 
pression God-man,  this  dogma  has  ever  been  cherished 
by  all  the  Christian  churches  as  a  religious  truth,  and 
one  of  the  most  important  of  all.  And  accordingly, 
with  due  religious  consistency,  they  condemn  as  hereti- 
cal the  teaching  of  those  who  deny  either  of  these  terms, 
— both  that  of  the  Docetes,  who  rejected  the  true  man- 
hood of  Jesus,  declaring  it  to  be  apparent  only,  and  that 
of  the  Eationalists,  who  rejected  the  divinity  of  Christ. 
It  is  not  the  business  of  the  science  of  religion  to 
maintain  or  defend,  still  less  to  dispute  or  destroy,  this 
or  any  other  dogma,  or  any  religious  conception  as  such. 
Its  duty  is  merely  to  explain.  But  here  it  is  confronted 
with  the  question  —  How  comes  it  that  this  doctrine 
of  the  God-man  occurs,  not  only  in  the  theanthropic 
religions,  which  with  more  or  less  bias  place  the 
immanence    of    God    in   the    foreground,  but  even   in 


\ 


Vif^\   Aj^  \xthe  deepest  i 
^^*  -•  In  the  firs 


120  SCIENCE   OF  RELIGION. 

the  Christian  religions,  which  all  spring  from  a  com- 
mon religious  communion,  having  emanated  from  the 
strongly  theocratic  Judaism,  whose  God  was  transcen- 
dental, if  one  ever  was  ?  How  has  this  doctrine  come 
to  occupy  so  prominent  and  so  central  a  place  that  its 
denial  is  regarded  by  most  Christians  as  a  denial  of 
i^/^  Christianity  itself,  and  tantamount  to  unbelief  ?      To 

this  there  can  be  but  one  answer — Because  it  satisfies 
needs  of  the  religious  soul, 
first  place,  there  is  need  of  communion  with 
the  Divinity.  The  result  of  the  development  of  religion 
on  the  theocratic  lines  was  an  ever-increasing  exalta- 
tion, by  means  of  spiritualisation,  of  the  conception  of 
God.  Even  the  great  Persian  reformer  had  already,  in 
Ahura  Mazda,  held  up  to  his  people  as  an  object  of 
adoration  a  god  far  above  all  the  nature-gods  they 
had  hitherto  worshipped.  In  Greece,  by  the  philo- 
sophers at  least,  the  anthropomorphic  conception  of 
Zeus  and  the  other  gods  was  vigorously  disputed. 
How  much  more  emphatically  would  the  like  be  done 
by  the  Israelites,  whose  God,  the  Holy  and  Invisible, 
dwells  in  secret,  who  is  unapproachable,  to  whom  weak 
mortals,  conscious  of  their  immeasurable  inferiority, 
scarce  dare  to  draw  near  with  fear  and  trembling  ? 
The  more  abstract,  and  the  further  divested  of  human 
imagery,  the  conception  of  God  becomes,  the  more  diffi- 
cult it  is  found  by  man  to  seek  and  to  maintain  com- 
munion  with   so   exalted    a    Being^.       Without    such 


RELATIONSHIP  BETWEEN  GOD  AND  MAN.     121 

communion  his  faith  is  a  dead  and  barren  faith.  He 
desires  to  feel  that  he  is  near  his  God,  and  that  his 
God  is  near  him.  The  worshipper  wishes  to  possess  as 
his  own  the  object  of  his  worship.  He  wishes  to  love 
it  with  his  whole  soul ;  but  how  can  he  love  what  is 
raised  so  far  above  him,  and  almost  defies  the  possi- 
bility of  conception  ?  This  need  is  satisfied  by  tHe 
conception  of  the  God-man.  Here  is  a  being  like 
himself,  and  yet  far  above  him,  a  being  that  he  can 
love  and  adore  at  the  same  time.  He  cannot  see  his 
God  ;  but  here  is  a  being  who  says  to  him — "  He  who 
sees  me,  sees  the  Father" — here  is  His  image.  The 
perfection  of  God  overwhelms  him ;  here  is  a  being  to 
whom  he  can  give  himself,  whom  he  can  at  least  try  to 
follow,  and  by  becoming  whose  likeness  he  may  strive 
to  the  utmost  of  his  power  to  become  a  likeness  and  a 
follower  of  God. 

And  in  the  second  place,  in  order  to  strengthen  his 
sentiment  of  relationship  with  the  Deity,  man  feels  the  y 
need  of  beholding  in  a  concrete  image,  formed  by  a 
union  of  the  divine  and  the  human,  the  true  divinity  of 
the  highest  humanity.  In  his  Gifford  Lectures  ('  The 
Evolution  of  Eeligion')  Professor  Edward  Caird  has 
repeatedly  made  a  very  striking  remark,  and  one  which 
may  indeed  be  described  as  a  psychological  discovery, 
to  the  effect  that  in  the  human  mind  the  idea  of  the 
Infinite  precedes  that  of  the  Finite.  The  finite  we 
know  by  experience  alone ;  of  the  infinite,  experience 


,v 


122  SCIENCE   OF  RELIGION. 

teaches  us  nothing.  On  the  contrary,  the  infinite  is  in 
irreconcilable  conflict  with  all  our  experience.  Nor  is 
it  the  result  of  reasoning,  for  there  is  nothing  from 
which  we  can  deduce  it  as  an  inference.  It  is  born 
in  us,  and  w^e  cannot  choose  but  think  it.  We  act 
unconsciously  as  if  we  were  infinite.  Infinity  is  the 
mainspring  of  all  human  development.  At  the  same 
time  it  is  the  source  of  a  healthy  pessimism,  which  acts 
as  a  check  on  a  narrow  and  superficial  optimism,  and 
which  lies  at  the  root  of  all  progress.  Xothing  satisfies 
us  really  and  permanently  except  striving  after  the 
infinite,  even  though  we  are  perfectly  aware  that, 
during  our  earthly  existence  at  least,  it  is  beyond 
our  reach.  We  are  cramped  by  the  fetters  imposed 
on  us ;  we  regard  as  unnatural  the  limits  against  which 
we  fret.  Our  spirits  therefore  revel  in  a  magical  world, 
with  the  fantastic  delineation  of  which  the  romancers 
ever  delight  children,  both  small  and  great.  Hence  it 
is  that  we  dream  of  a  beautiful  past  when  everything 
was  as  yet  perfect,  and  when  mortal  happiness  was 
undisturbed.  Hence  we  long  for  a  future  age  when 
all  tears  will  be  wiped  away,  and  all  toil  will  have  an 
end ;  for  "  hope  springs  eternal  in  the  human  breast," 
in  spite  of  all  experience,  and  has  hitherto  proved 
ineradicable.  In  our  best  moments  we  feel  superior 
to  the  world  of  phenomena  around  us;  we  feel  the 
superiority  of  our  spirits  to  the  blind  powers  of  nature 
which  can  crush  us ;  we  feel  that  we  are  not  merely  of 


RELATIONSHIP  BETWEEN  GOD  AND  MAN.     123 

the  earth,  earthy,  that  we  are  not  merely  dust  which  to 
dust  must  return,  and  that  man  and  mortal  are  far 
from  being  simply  convertible  terms.  Translated  into 
the  form  of  religious  conception,  this  consciousness  of  the 
infinite  within  us  is  that  sentiment  of  kinship  with  the 
superhuman  power  which  the  religious  soul  postulates. 
But  then  come  our  daily  experiences  with  their  terrible 
reality.  Everything  around  us  passes  away.  Death 
snatches  away  our  dearest  ones  from  our  side,  and  we 
ourselves  sometimes  feel  the  chill  touch  of  its  hand. 
Our  most  excellent  plans,  so  well  considered,  so  care- 
fully prepared,  are  constantly  thwarted.  We  desire  to 
investigate,  to  know,  and  to  understand,  but  we  con- 
tinually stumble  against  riddles  which  we  are  powerless 
to  solve,  and  we  perceive  that  we  only  "  know  in  part." 
Then  it  is  that  we  feel  the  limitation  of  our  powers, 
our  littleness,  our  nothingness.  But,  as  we  cannot  rest 
content  with  our  condition,  we  seek  support  for  our 
weakness  in  more  highly  gifted  persons,  in  the  mighty 
spirits  who  "  endure  as  seeing  Him  who  is  invisible," 
in  saints  "  whose  conversation  [or  rather,  citizenship] 
is  in  heaven,"  in  inspired  prophets  whose  witness 
strengthens  us,  and  above  all  in  the  contemplation 
of  the  image  of  that  One  in  whom  the  purely  human 
element  coincides  with  the  all-conqiuering  divine  love,    v 

Lastly,  this  experience  of  our  weakness  and  impo- 
tence is  equivalent,  in  the  ethical  domain,  to  that  con- 
sciousness  of  guilt   which  gives   rise  to   our   need   of 


124  SCIENCE   OF  RELIGION. 

redemption.  As  I  have  already  said  more  than  once, 
the  idea  of  redemption,  which  has  sometimes  been 
erroneously  supposed  to  be  limited  to  the  most 
highly  developed  religions,  is  absolutely  general,  al- 
though the  form  in  which  it  is  conceived  is  at  first 
very  simple  and  imperfect.  The  image  is  borrowed 
from  that  of  captivity.  Eedemption  is  release,  not 
merely,  as  it  is  usually  understood,  from  the  power  of 
sin,  and  still  less  from  its  consequences  and  penalties 
only,  but  from  all  the  bonds  of  finiteness,  from  every- 
thing that  hampers  man  in  the  full  development  of  his 
spiritual  life.  Such  is  the  Brahmanic  Moksha,  which 
is  a  release  from  all  worldly  hindrances ;  and  a  still 
more  striking  example  is  the  Buddhistic  Nirvana, 
in  which  all  desire,  all  pleasure,  even  a  man's  very 
personality,  are  extinguished.  The  Christian  concep- 
tions, which  sometimes  differ  very  widely,  are  more 
temperate,  and  chiefly  lay  stress  on  reconciliation  with 
God.  But,  here,  as  in  other  ethical  religions,  the  power 
to  release  and  the  power  to  reconcile  are  concretely 
combined  in  the  person  of  the  Mediator,  who  was 
born  of  God  and  yet  was  man,  just  as  in  the  old 
nature -religions  the  demi-gods  were  Saviours  and 
Liberators.  And  the  origin  of  this  need  of  redemp- 
tion or  release,  the  feeling  that  prompts  man  to  seek 
salvation  from  his  Piedeemer,  is  none  other  than  his 
sentiment  of  kinship  with  God,  which  has  come  into 
collision  with  the  sad  experiences  of  his  moral  battle  of 


RELATIONSHIP  BETWEEN  GOD  AND  MAN.     125 

life.  Even  his  highest  aspirations  have  so  often  ended 
in  disappointment.  What  he,  his  higher  ego,  would,  he 
has  left  undone,  and  what  he  would  not,  that  he  has 
done.  Akin  to  God,  yet  he  has  proved  untrue  to  his 
origin.  Though  he  ought  to  be  superior,  he  feels  his 
inferiority  to  a  power  that  is  really  beneath  him,  and 
whose  service  degrades  him.  And  then,  whatever  be 
the  conception  he  forms  of  it,  whether  he  is  still  in 
bondage  to  a  belief  in  certain  magic  influences,  or 
whether  he  be  aware  that  it  is  the  spectacle  of  moral 
grandeur  that  restores  him  to  himself,  the  image  of  the 
man  that  was  one  with  God  revives  in  him  a  conscious- 
ness of  his  kinship  with  God,  and  enables  him  to  be 
reconciled  both  with  himself  and  with  his  God. 

I  have  endeavoured  to  account  for  the  conception  in 
which  religious  faith  culminates,  the  concrete  image  in 
which  the  union  of  the  divine  and  the  human  is  dis- 
cerned, as  arising  out  of  the  needs  of  the  religious  soul. 
We  have  established  the  presence  of  two  root-ideas  in 
all  conceptions  of  faith.  On  a  closer  examination, 
which  our  time  does  not  now  permit,  we  might  per- 
haps discover  that  the  two  are  essentially  one.  No 
form,  however  beautiful,  however  exalted,  is  abiding ; 
for  no  form  can  adequately  express  what  is  infinite  and 
ineffable.  Who  does  not  feel  that,  as  "  we  know  in  part," 
so  we  can  only  "  prophesy  in  part "  ?  Yet  forms  are 
necessary ;  and  no  form  ought  to  be  discarded  until  some 
other  is  discovered  which  expresses  more  correctly  and 


126  SCIENCE  OF  RELIGION. 

adequately  the  truth  of  which  it  is  the  figure.  The 
Credo  quia  absurchom  est  of  Tertullian,  if  taken  in  a 
literal  sense,  would  be  an  unwarrantable  and  therefore 
an  inadmissible  paradox.  That  an  ephemeral  being 
like  man  should  imagine  that  he  participates  in  the  In- 
finite, is,  judged  by  materialistic  or  sober  rationalistic 
standards,  the  most  absurd  thino;  in  the  world.  Yet 
this  belief  is  one  of  the  chief  corner-stones  of  religion, 
and  it  perfectly  justifies  the  pious  believer  in  declaring 
that  what  seems  foolishness  to  the  world  may  be  wisdom 
with  God. 


127 


LECTUEE    VI. 

WOESHIP,   PEAYEES,    AND   OFFEEIXGS. 

A  SENTIMENT  of  kinship  with  the  superhuman  powers, 
as  well  as  a  sense  of  entire  dependence  upon  them, 
impels  the  religious  man  to  seek  communion  with 
them,  or  at  least  to  enter  into  some  kind  of  relation 
towards  them,  and  to  re-establish  such  communion 
when  he  thinks  it  has  been  broken  off  through  his 
own  fault.  From  this  impulse  spring  all  those  reli- 
gious observances  which  are  usually  embraced  in  the 
term  worship.  Not,  however,  that  worship  is  the  only 
badge  of  religious  sentiment.  If  this  sentiment  is 
sincere  and  fervent,  it  manifests  itself  throughout  the 
whole  of  a  man's  conduct,  and  exerts  a  decisive  influ- 
ence on  his  whole  moral  life.  It  is  not,  however,  of 
this  influence  that  we  are  now  speaking.  I  merely 
mention  it  in  order  to  show  that  I  do  not  overlook  so 
important  a  fruit  of  religion,  and  we  shall  return  to 
the  subject  afterwards.  For  the  present  we  are  solely 
occupied  with  the  observances  more  immediately  con- 


128  SCIENCE   OF  RELIGION. 

nected  with  religion — observances  which  are  but  little 
cultivated  or  even  entirely  neglected  by  some,  and  are 
regarded  as  the  chief  and  vital  characteristic  of  relig- 
ion by  others. 

Let  us  at  once  proceed  to  examine  these  two  different 
views.  Each  represents  a  truth  carried  to  one-sided 
exaggeration.  Worship  is  certainly  not  the  chief  thing 
in  religion.  There  may  indeed  be  some  who,  on  various 
grounds,  abstain  from  taking  part  in  public  worship, 
but  who  are  yet  deeply  religious,  and  whose  whole  life 
is  governed  by  religious  principles — more  so  perhaps 
than  the  lives  of  those  good  people  who  hardly  ever 
miss  a  single  religious  service.  But,  as  a  general  rule, 
men  long  to  give  utterance  to  the  sentiments  of  which 
their  hearts  are  full ;  for  the  being  they  revere  they 
will  show  their  reverence  in  words  and  in  acts  of 
homage ;  for  the  object  of  their  affection  they  will 
show  their  love  by  striving  to  be  near  it ;  and  so,  too, 
the  worshipper  longs  to  possess  and  to  give  himself 
wholly  and  utterly  to  the  being  he  worships.  Worship 
is  not,  however,  a  proof  of  religion  unless  genuine ;  it 
may  be  a  mere  spurious  imitation.  On  the  other  hand, 
if  a  man  abstains  from  all  public  worship,  it  is  a  proof 
that  in  his  case  this  religious  need  is  in  a  dormant 
state,  if  it  exists  at  all.  Although  I  should  hesitate  to 
agree  with  Eauwenhoff  when  he  says  that  "religion 
is  nothing  unless  it  is  also  worship,"  I  am  convinced 
that  our  religion  lacks  something,  and  that  it  is  not  in 


WORSHIP,  PRAYERS,   AND   OFFERINGS.        129 

a  healthy  condition,  if  it  feels  no  need  of  manifesting 
itself  also  in  worship.  No  one,  therefore,  who  proposes 
to  investigate  the  nature  of  religion  should  fail  to  study 
those  observances  which  form  its  immediate  reflection. 

One  must  not,  however,  confine  oneself  to  a  single 
form,  but  must  pass  all  forms  in  review.  A  whole 
theory  is  too  often  built  upon  observations  relating  to 
a  single  series  of  phenomena,  and  is  then  supposed  to 
account  for  the  origin  and  significance  of  worship  in 
general,  and  perhaps  even  for  religion  itself.  It  is  also 
a  common  mistake  to  pay  exclusive  attention  to  public 
religious  observances,  as  if  they  were  the  only  ones. 
Pfleiderer  defines  religious  cult  as  "an  utterance  or 
manifestation  (Bethatigung)  of  the  religious  conscious- 
ness by  means  of  the  representative  observances  of  the 
congregation,  whereby  its  aspiration  for  communion 
with  the  divine  attains  actual  consummation."  ^  But, 
however  true  the  second  part  of  his  definition  may 
be,  he  forgets  that  worship  was  practised  long  before 
any  regular  congregations  existed,  and  that  the  reli- 
gious rites  observed  by  the  father  in  the  midst  of  his 
family,  and  even  by  individuals  in  perfect  solitude,  must 
be  included  in  the  term  worship. 

The  late  W.  Eobertson  Smith,  in  his  last  work,  the 
second  edition  of  which  he  himself  prepared  for  the 
press  with  his  dying  hand,^  maintains  that  the  type  of 

^  Religionsphilosophie,  2nd  ed.,  ii.  534. 

^  Lectures  on  the  Religion  of  the  Semites  ;  1st  series,  The  Fund- 
VOL.  IT.  I 


130  SCIENCE   OF  RELIGION. 

religion  based  upon  racial  kinship,  such  as  where  the 
deity  and  his  worshippers  form  a  community  cemented 
by  ties  of  blood,  was,  among  the  Semites  at  least,  the 
original  form  of  religion.  No  family  religion  could 
exist  at  the  outset,  because  there  was  no  family  as  yet. 
Even  the  individual  possessed  religion  only  in  so  far 
as  he  was  a  member  of  the  tribe.  The  author  also 
believes  that  kinship  alone  formed  the  basis  of  religious 
and  national  union.  But,  in  spite  of  the  immense 
learning  he  exhibits,  and  the  wealth  of  strong  evidence 
and  cogent  arguments  he  submits,  he  has  not  succeeded 
in  convincing  me  of  the  soundness  of  his  theory.  At 
the  same  time  it  contains  a  large  amount  of  truth. 
With  great  acumen  and  justice,  he  points  out  that  the 
sentiment  of  kinship  with  the  gods  has  been  one  of  the 
most  potent  factors  in  the  genesis  of  religion,  and  that 
such  a  form  of  veneration  of  the  gods  as  he  describes 
was  the  original  form  of  public  worship.  One  kind  of 
religious  observance,  the  only  kind  he  expressly  treats 
of,  and  the  one  which  he  supposes  to  have  been  the 
earliest  of  all,  is  that  of  common  sacrificial  repasts, 
which  his  theory  accounts  for  better  than  any  other. 
For  this  he  deserves  oreat  credit.  But  I  do  not  think 
we  are  justified  in  applying  this  theory  to  all  other 
forms  of  worship,  or  simply  to  pronounce  those  which 
are  inconsistent  with  it  to  be  mere  modern  innovations. 

amental  Institution  ;  revised  edition,  London,  A.  &  C.  Black,  1894  ; 
pass. ,  and  particularly  p.  50  seq. 


WORSHIP,   PRAYERS,  AND   OFFERINGS.        131 

Be  that  as  it  may,  and  whatever  may  have  been  the 
oldest  form  or  the  origin  of  worship,  we  know  many 
forms  of  it  whose  existence  has  been,  or  still  is,  justi- 
fiable, and  which  are  but  various  different  attempts  to 
satisfy  the  needs  of  religious  sentiment.  Impossible 
as  it  would  be  to  refute  a  work  like  Robertson  Smith's, 
in  so  far  as  we  differ  from  it,  except  by  a  similar  work 
based  upon  long  and  extensive  research,  and  impos- 
sible as  it  is,  within  our  present  limits,  to  describe 
all  these  forms,  or  even  the  most  important  of  them, 
yet  we  must  endeavour  to  enumerate  and  classify  the 
chief  types. 

It  has  been  remarked  (by  Eauwenhoff  and  Pfleiderer), 
and  to  a  certain  extent  justly,  that  all  worship  is  of  a 
twofold  character.  Man  approaches  his  God,  and  God 
approaches  man.  The  worshipper  invokes  the  super- 
human powers,  and  they  answer  him.  In  the  narrative 
of  Elijah's  contest  with  the  priests  of  Ba'al  on  Mount 
Carmel,  one  of  the  grandest  creations  of  religious  poetry, 
the  proof  that  the  worship  of  Yahve  in  Israel  is  the 
only  true  worship  consists  in  the  fact  that,  however 
loudly  the  priests  of  Ba'al  might  shout,  however 
much  they  might  lament  and  torture  themselves, 
"  there  was  no  voice,  nor  any  that  answered,"  whereas 
the  prophet  of  Yahve  had  scarcely  uttered  his  prayer 
before  he  was  answered  by  the  Holy  One  of  Israel  with 
fire  from  heaven.  The  pious  worshipper  is  active  when 
he  prays  and  presents  his  offerings,  and  passive  when 


132  SCIENCE  OF  RELIGION. 

he  hears  the  voice  of  his  god ;  and  these  two  conditions 
are  in  close  union  on  the  occasion  of  sacrificial  repasts 
and  festivals,  when  the  deity  himself  vouchsafes  to  take 
part  in  them  and  to  dwell  among  his  faithful  servants. 
And  the  same  idea  is  expressed  in  the  beautiful  sym- 
bolic language  of  the  Book  of  Eevelation  (iii.  20): 
"  Behold,  I  stand  at  the  door  and  knock :  if  any  man 
hear  my  voice,  and  open  the  door,  I  will  come  in  to 
him,  and  will  sup  with  him,  and  he  with  me."  In 
short,  if  worship  is  to  be  something  more  than  mere 
outward  show,  the  believer  must  not  only  feel  the  need 
of  pouring  out  his  heart,  but  must  be  thoroughly  con- 
vinced that  he  does  not  seek  his  God  in  vain,  that 
his  prayers  will  be  heard,  that  his  offerings  will  be 
accepted,  and  that,  though  he  hears  no  audible  voice 
nor  sees  any  visible  sign,  God  will  reveal  Himself  to 
his  soul.  This  double  or  reciprocal  character  of  religion 
must  not,  however,  be  construed  too  literally  or  in  a 
mere  mechanical  sense.  For  it  is  not  as  if  one  phase 
of  it  emanated  from  God,  and  the  other  from  man.  It 
must,  as  a  whole,  emanate  from  God  and  from  man  at 
one  and  the  same  time.  The  early  Christians  always 
spoke  of  the  "  word  of  God  and  prayer  "  as  two  distinct 
things;  and  in  fact  all  public  Christian  worship  still 
consists  of  a  combination  of  these.  Yet  a  profound 
religious  truth  is  contained  in  the  answer  said  to  have 
been  given,  under  divine  inspiration,  by  the  Persian 
mystic  Jelal-ed-Din  Rumi,  to  a  pious  inquirer.      He 


WORSHIP^   PRAYERS,  AND   OFFERINGS.         133 

complains  that  his  prayers  to  Allah  remain  unanswered, 
and  he  had  been  persuaded  by  Satan  that  they  were  all 
in  vain.  "  But  why,"  asks  the  prophet,  "  have  you 
ceased  to  call  upon  God  ?  "  "  Because,"  replied  the 
doubter,  "  the  answer,  '  Here  am  I,'  never  came,  and  I 
feared  to  be  turned  away  from  the  door."  Whereupon 
the  prophet  says  :  "  Thus  has  God  commanded  me :  Go 
to  him,  and  say,  '  0  sorely  tried  man,  was  it  not  I  that 
urged  you  to  serve  Me  ?  .  .  .  Your  invocation  of  Allah 
was  My '  Here  am  1/  and  your  pain,  your  longing,  your 
zeal,  were  My  messengers." 

The  most  general,  the  most  constant,  and  therefore 
the  most  important  element  in  worship  is  Prayer.  A 
cult  may  be  destitute  of  sacrificial  ceremonies  or  of 
outward  observances  of  any  kind,  but  no  cult  is  possible 
or  conceivable  without  prayer.  If  the  voice  of  prayer 
is  dumb,  religion  itself  is  extinct.  Whether  it  be  a 
spontaneous  entreaty  welling  up  from  the  inmost  soul, 
or  the  repetition  of  a  formal  supplication,  whether  it  be 
expressed  in  untutored  language  or  in  the  form  of  a 
hymn  of  praise,  sung  by  a  single  worshipper  or  by 
many  together,  whether  it  be  a  loud  invocation,  or  a 
low  murmur,  or  even  a  silent  thought,  prayer  must  ever 
be  the  most  natural  utterance  of  religious  persons  who 
seek  communion  with  the  deity,  who  ask  for  his  sup- 
port and  succour,  and  who  desire  to  make  their  wants 
known  to  him.  Nor  do  we  know  of  any  religion,  how- 
ever  undeveloped,  in   which   prayer   does    not   occur. 


134  SCIENCE  OF  RELIGION. 

The  primitive  man  addresses  his  god  in  the  same  way 
as  he  addresses  the  spirits  of  his  deceased  relatives,  or 
his  living  friends,  or  the  earthly  powers  from  which 
he  has  anything  to  hope  or  to  fear.  We  are  told 
that  when  Prince  Maximilian  of  Wied  was  in  North 
America  he  heard  the  Mandans  repeat  the  pleasing 
legend  that  "  the  first  man  had  promised  to  assist  them 
whenever  they  should  be  in  distress,  and  had  then 
removed  to  the  Far  West."  (It  need  hardly  be  said 
that  this  first  man,  the  progenitor  of  the  human  race, 
is  none  other  thsri  the  sjod  of  the  sun.)  "  When  enemies 
attacked  them,"  the  legend  proceeded,  "one  of  them 
proposed  to  send  a  bird  after  their  protector  to  invoke 
his  aid.  But  no  bird  could  fly  so  far.  Another  thought 
that  perhaps  a  glance  of  the  eye  might  penetrate  to  his 
presence,  but  the  hills  of  the  prairie  prevented  this. 
Then  spoke  a  third:  'Thoughts  are  the  surest  means 
of  reaching  him.'  Whereupon  he  prostrated  himself, 
wrapped  himself  up  in  his  buffalo-skin,  and  said :  '  I 
think  —  I  have  thought  —  I  return.'  And  then  he 
arose,  bathed  in  sweat.  And  the  expected  succour 
came."^  The  idea  of  such  a  purely  spiritual  inter- 
course, of  addressing,  and  being  heard  by,  an  invisible 
being,  who  is  believed  to  be  a  long  way  off,  does  not 
strike  the  unsophisticated  believer  as  anything  strange. 
For  the  beings  he  invokes  are  superhuman  beings, 
exempt  from  the  limitations  of  this  earthly  life. 

^  See  AVaitz,  Anthropologie  der  Xaturvolker,  iii.  206. 


WORSHIP,   PRAYERS,  AND   OFFERINGS.         135 

But  am  I  thus  representing  the  origin  of  prayer 
as  too  simple  a  matter  ?  Was  not  prayer,  according 
to  a  well-known  theory,  a  very  different  thing  origin- 
ally from  what  it  is  with  us ;  was  it  not  rather  a 
magic  rite  whereby  the  gods  or  spirits  were  exor- 
cised and  subjected  to  the  human  will  ?  We  are  here 
confronted  with  a  most  important  and  difficult  ques- 
tion, which  concerns  worship  as  a  whole,  but  has 
special  reference  to  prayer,  and  which  we  had  there- 
fore better  discuss  now.  I  mean  the  question 
whether  magic  rites,  sorcery,  and  enchantment  are 
original  elements  in  worship  or  are  merely  incidental 
to  it :  whether  intercourse  with  the  superhuman 
powers  began  with  such  rites,  or  whether  they  are 
to  be  regarded  as  morbid  phenomena  which  made 
their  appearance  at  a  subsequent  period.  Those  who 
concur  in  the  well-known  saying  of  Statius,  "primus 
in  orhe  timor  fecit  deosl'  will  take  the  former  view, 
and  will  hold,  with  Kenan,  that  religion  began  with 
man's  endeavours  to  propitiate  the  hostile  powers  by 
which  he  fancied  himself  surrounded.  I  must  confess, 
however,  that  prolonged  research  and  reflection  have 
more  and  more  convinced  me  of  the  inaccuracy  of 
that  view.  I  would  far  rather  indorse  the  words  of 
Eobertson  Smith  to  the  effect  that,  "  From  the  earliest 
times,  religion,  distinct  from  magic  and  sorcery, 
addresses  itself  to  kindred  and  friendly  beings,  who 
may  indeed  be  angry  with  their  people  for  a  time, 


136  SCIENCE   OF  RELIGION. 

but  are  always  placable  except  to  the  enemies  of 
their  worshippers  or  to  renegade  members  of  the 
community.  It  is  not  with  a  vague  fear  of  unknown 
powers,  but  with  a  loving  reverence  for  known  gods 
who  are  knit  to  their  worshippers  by  strong  bonds 
of  kinship,  that  religion  in  the  only  true  sense  of  the 
word  begins."^  For  the  present,  we  pass  over  the 
question  as  to  the  origin  of  religion ;  but  we  agree 
that  worship,  even  in  its  most  primitive  form,  always 
contains  an  element  of  veneration.  Prayer,  at  all 
events,  however  far  removed  in  its  inception  from 
the  entire  surrender  of  the  will  implied  in  "  Thy  will 
be  done,"  can  never  have  arisen  from  magic  rites 
intended  to  coerce  the  deity.  Men  do  not  gather 
grapes  of  thistles.  Superstition  cannot  be  the  mother 
of  religion.    - 

Let  us  at  once  admit  what  is  undeniable.  In  the 
history  of  cults,  sorcery  always  occupies  a  prominent 
place.  It  is  true  that  magical  power  has  often  been 
ascribed  to  ancient  forms  of  prayer,  now  more  or  less 
unintelligible,  and  degraded  to  a  senseless  jingle,  to 
monotonous  litanies,  songs  of  praise,  and  sacrificial 
hymns,  whether  they  possessed  any  literary  value,  or 
were  pervaded  by  a  lofty  religious  tone,  or  were 
destitute  of  both,  and  also  to  ritual  observances 
whose  object  and  meaning  have  long  since  fallen  into 
oblivion ;    and    that    such    power    has    been    thought 

^  Religion  of  the  Semites,  2nd  ed.,  pp.  54,  55. 


WORSHIP,  PRAYERS,   AND   OFFERINGS.         137 

effectual,  not  merely  to  exorcise  evil  spirits  and  to 
repel  enemies,  but  even  to  coerce  the  high  gods 
themselves.  And  in  such  cases  neither  the  meaning 
of  the  words,  nor  the  views  they  expressed,  nor  the 
religious  emotions  they  might  awaken,  were  of  the 
slightest  moment,  for  everything  depended  solely  on 
the  frequent  and  absolutely  correct  repetition  of 
every  word  and  sound,  in  strict  accordance  with 
traditional  rhythm.  A  phrase,  a  name,  a  symbol,  or 
even  a  gesture,  made  the  devils  tremble  and  the 
good  spirits  fly  to  the  aid  of  the  faithful.  Of  this 
superstition  thousands  of  instances  are  to  be  found, 
not  only  in  all  the  nature-religions,  but  in  some  of 
the  more  highly  developed  religions  also.  They  even 
occur  in  some  of  the  ethical  religions,  such  as  the 
Brahmanic  and  the  Zarathushtrian ;  nor  are  they 
altogether  absent  from  some  of  our  own  Christian 
churches. 

Are  we,  then,  to  regard  such  practices  as  being 
original,  and  the  more  rational  conceptions  as  being 
derivatives  from  them?  Surely  not.  Consider,  for 
example,  the  Vedic  hymns.  Many  of  them,  no 
doubt,  exhibiting  but  little  poetic  inspiration,  were 
composed  by  priests  with  a  view  to  give  point  to 
their  sacrificial  rites.  But  most  of  them,  including 
the  earliest,  are  spontaneous  creations  of  poetic 
genius,  destined  perhaps  by  their  authors  to  be  sung 
at   sacrificial   ceremonies  and    thus   to    enhance  their 


138  SCIENCE   OF  RELIGION. 

solemnity,  but  certainly  not  to  be  used  as  magical 
incantations.  It  was  reserved  for  later  generations 
to  ascribe  to  them  such  magical  virtue ;  it  was  they 
who  taught  that  they  were  of  supernatural  origin, 
and  were  indeed  the  very  words  of  Brahma  or 
IsVara  himself.  My  highly  esteemed  friend,  the  late 
Dr  John  Muir,  who  contributed  so  much,  not  only 
in  Scotland,  but  far  beyond  the  limits  of  his  own 
country,  to  promote  tlie  study  of  Indian  antiquity, 
has  proved  from  the  texts  themselves  that  the 
authors  of  the  Vedic  hymns  never  made  any  such 
lofty  claims.^  The  same  may  be  said  of  the  Gathas, 
the  earliest  hymns  of  the  Avesta,  to  which  the 
Parsees  also  attribute  such  miraculous  power,  and 
which  they  even  worship  as  a  kind  of  divine  beings, 
although  their  contents  make  it  apparent  that  their 
authors,  the  prophets  of  salvation  {saoshyaTit),  as  they 
call  themselves,  merely  intended  them  to  aid  in  the 
promulgation  of  the  new  doctrine.  The  magical 
papyri  of  the  Egyptians,  on  the  other  hand,  while 
containing  a  number  of  truly  noble  songs  of  praise 
addressed  to  the  high  gods,  and  chiefly  to  the  Sun- 
god,  are  full  of  other  compositions  of  a  very  different 
kind,  which  were  expressly  designed  by  their  authors 
to  ward  off  evil  spirits  or  noxious  beasts,  and  even  of 
spells  and  incantations  which  are  absolute  nonsense, 
consisting  of  a  string  of  words   destitute  of  meaning 

^  J.  Muir,  Original  Sanskrit  Texts,  III.,  2nd  ed.,  p.  232  seq. 


WORSHIP,   PRAYERS,   AND   OFFERINGS.        139 

or  borrowed  from  some  foreign  and  unintelligible 
language.^  But  there  is  no  difficulty  in  distinguish- 
ing between  the  works  of  the  true  poets,  borrowed 
by  the  magician-priests  for  their  own  purposes,  and 
the  silly  products  of  their  own  stupidity.  An  ex- 
cellent example  of  this  is  afforded  by  that  most 
sacred  prayer  of  the  Parsees,  the  Ahuna-vairya,  or 
Honover,  which  they  regard  as  the  most  effectual 
spell  to  ward  off  the  evil  spirits,  the  Daevas  and 
Drujas  —  nay,  even  as  the  creative  word  of  Ahura 
Mazda  himself.  This  text  is  difficult  to  understand, 
as  it  has  been  handed  down  by  ignorant  persons, 
and  in  a  very  fragmentary  condition.  But  part  of 
the  contents  is  sufficiently  clear  to  convince  us  that 
originally  it  was  not  even  a  prayer — any  more  than 
most  of  the  other  oldest  prayers  of  the  Zarathush- 
trians  were  originally  prayers  —  but  a  fragment  of 
a  lost  Gatha.  And,  to  cite  one  more  example  of  a 
less  abstruse  and  remote  character,  we  may  be  quite 
certain  that  the  Lord's  Prayer  was  not  originally 
intended  to  be  used  as  a  mere  senseless  incantation, 
as  was  practically  done  by  mediaeval  Christendom. 

I  do  not  say  that  the  magician's  art  is  of  recent 
origin.  In  Babylon  and  in  Egypt,  for  instance,  it 
is   very  ancient.     But   I   am   satisfied   that,  although 

^  See,  e.g.,  '  Le  Papyrus  magique  Harris,'  par  F.  Chabas,  Chalon-sur- 
Saone,  1860  ;  and  the  beautiful  hymns  to  the  Sun  in  the  Book  of  the 
Dead,  chap.  xv. 


140  SCIENCE  OF  RELIGION. 

it  was  probably  associated  with  religion  at  an  early 
period,  it  was  of  an  entirely  different  character,  and 
was  not  originally  part  and  parcel  of  it.  Magic  is 
directed  towards  an  unknown  world  of  wonders, 
which  is  dreaded  and  regarded  with  abhorrence ; 
religion  turns  with  earnest  longing  towards  an  un- 
known wonder-world,  to  which  indeed  the  believer 
looks  up  with  awe,  but  upon  which  he  builds  his 
hopes.  What,  then,  has  brought  about  the  connec- 
tion between  the  religious  and  the  magical  elements 
in  so  many  religions  ?  This  connection  is  not  always 
of  the  same  nature.  It  may  be  the  result  of  a 
slackening  of  religious  life  and  religious  inspiration, 
which  leads  to  the  substitution  of  formalism  for 
religion.  But  it  is  often  the  consequence  of  a  too 
rapid  spread  of  religion — I  mean  its  diffusion  among 
peoples,  tribes,  or  classes  which  are  not  yet  suffi- 
ciently advanced  to  be  capable  of  understanding  it. 
The  ignorant  and  therefore  superstitious  multitude 
are  very  apt  to  regard  what  they  do  not  understand 
as  something  mysterious,  something  invested  with 
divine  power,  which  they  are  as  yet  unable  to  dis- 
tinguish from  sorcery.  And  no  less  ignorant  and 
superstitious  sorcerer-priests  use  their  spells  in  good 
faith  and  in  honour  of  their  gods,  while  designing 
impostors  use  them  for  the  selfish  end  of  gaining 
honour  and  profit  for  themselves.  Thus  it  happens 
that  prayers  and  texts,  hymns,  rites,  and  sacred  in- 


WORSHIP,  PBAYEBS,   AND   OFFERINGS.         141 

stitutioiis,  which  originated  in  genuine  religious 
emotion,  and  were  therefore  apt,  or  even  expressly 
designed,  to  awaken  the  like  emotions  in  others,  be- 
came objects  of  imbecile  superstitious  awe.  And  the 
less  they  are  understood,  the  more  awful  do  they 
seem ;  the  older  they  are,  the  holier  they  are 
esteemed.  And  so  they  come  to  be  repeated  by  rote 
as  mere  parrot  -  sounds,  or  imitated  with  senseless 
gesticulation,  with  the  conviction  that  they  will  pro- 
tect the  believer  against  the  Evil  One  and  reconcile 
him  with  his  God.  This  is  unavoidable.  Give  what 
is  holy  and  sublime  to  Herr  Omnes,  as  Luther  called 
the  2^'^^ofamcm  mdgus,  and  that  estimable  person  will 
be  incapable  of  receiving  it  without  dragging  it  down 
to  his  own  level,  thumbing  it,  so  to  speak,  and 
rendering  it  hopelessly  vulgar,  so  long  at  least  as  he 
retains  the  mastery. 

Are  we,  then,  to  regard  this  alliance  with  sorcery 
as  a  degeneration  of  religion  ?  Professor  Max  Muller 
has  styled  mythology  "  a  disease  of  language."  I 
believe  it  would  be  much  more  justifiable  to  call 
sorcery  "  a  disease  of  religion."  Some  religions  die 
of  it,  although  it  is  a  slow  death.  But  there  are 
others  which  recover  from  the  malady.  And  others 
again,  while  ceasing  to  find  pleasure  in  mere  empty 
phrases  and  gestures,  have  learned,  from  the  study 
of  the  real  meaning  of  the  traditional  texts  and 
observances,  to   regard    them   from   a   different   point 


142  SCIENCE   OF  RELIGION. 

of  view,  and  to  expect  from  them,  not  magical 
efficacy,  but  truly  religious  fruit. 

And  so,  doubtless,  prayer,  to  the  consideration  of 
which  I  return,  must  have  also  developed  from  a 
lower  to  a  higher  stage.  There  is  an  unsophisticated 
familiarity  in  the  manner  in  which  the  primitive 
worshipper  addresses  his  god.  When  he  discharges 
his  duties  towards  the  higher  powers,  and  offers 
them  homage  at  set  times,  he  believes  that  they  are 
then  bound  to  help  him  in  return.  "  If  I  were  you, 
and  you  I,"  says  a  Vedic  poet,  already  quoted,  to  his 
god,  "I  should  certainly  give  you  what  you  wish." 
He  imagines,  like  the  beggar  who  runs  after  you  in 
the  street,  that  he  will  gain  his  end  by  dint  of  en- 
treaty and  importunity.  Yet  this  is  only  a  moral 
suasion,  not  a  magical  coercion ;  it  always  takes  the 
form  of  a  petition  addressed  by  an  inferior  to  a 
superior.  As  man's  conceptions  of  God  become  nobler 
and  loftier,  so  his  prayers  will  become  purer  and 
worthier,  until  they  attain  their  climax  in  the  perfect 
submission  implied  in,  "  ISTot  my  will,  but  Thine  be 
done ! " 

Lastly,  we  must  distinguish  between  magic  and  mys- 
ticism. In  religion  a  wholesome  mysticism  is  justi- 
fiable ;  and  worship  in  particular  always  involves  a 
certain  mystic  element.  For  the  worshipper  communes 
with  superhuman  powers,  and,  when  he  has  reached  the 
spiritualistic  stage  of  development,  with   supersensual 


WORSHIP,   PRAYERS,  AND   OFFERINGS.        143 

powers.  An  element  of  mystery  is  necessarily  involved 
in  such  communion,  and  especially  in  the  wonderful 
efficacy  of  earnest  prayer  in  giving  peace  to  the  soul  of 
the  suppliant,  and  in  strengthening  his  faith,  even  be- 
fore the  prayer  is  answered,  or  even  when  it  remains 
unanswered.  But  this  is  a  very  different  thing  from 
an  effect  of  magic.  For  religion  ever  exists  in  abiding 
veneration,  while  magic  has  usually  been  a  mere  passing 
aberration,  from  which  religion  as  a  whole,  though  not 
every  particular  form  of  it,  has  always  in  the  course  of 
its  development  at  last  emancipated  itself. 

In  all  religions  w^e  find  sacrifices  and  offerings  asso- 
ciated with  prayer.  Although  they  seem  to  have  been 
abolished  in  some  religions,  and  notably  in  the  Christian, 
yet  even  in  these  they  are  still  kept  up  as  symbolic  ob- 
servances or  in  a  purely  ethical  sense.  In  the  case 
of  Eoman  Catholicism  the  Mass  is  still  a  very  definite 
and  systematic  sacrificial  observance,  being  the  daily 
repetition  of  the  sacrifice  offered  by  the  God-man,  of 
whose  body  and  blood  the  faithful  daily  partake  ;  while  I 
need  hardly  remind  you  that  the  incense,  the  flowers  and 
candles,  and  other  offerings  of  the  pious,  belong  to  the 
same  category.  Indeed  every  Lord's  Supper,  even  when 
the  doctrine  of  transubstantiation  is  rejected,  and  when 
it  is  regarded  as  a  purely  symbolic  observance,  is  really 
of  a  sacrificial  character.  And  although  believers  are 
convinced  that  the  service  of  God  does  not  consist  in 
offering  Him  gifts,  at  least  not  as  a  matter  of  compul- 


144  SCIENCE  OF  RELIGION. 

sion,  they  are  exhorted  to  present  their  bodies  as  "  a 
living  sacrifice,  holy,  acceptable  to  God,"  which  is  de- 
scribed as  their  "  reasonable  service  "  (Eom.  xii.  1).  In 
this  sense  all  religion,  if  it  is  to  be  anything  more  than 
mere  outward  show,  must  contain  the  element  of  sacri- 
fice, of  a  repeated  dedication  of  oneself  to  God,  which 
in  its  highest  stage  coincides  with  the  religious  life,  or 
at  least  maintains  and  animates  it. 

The  moment  we  begin  to  speak  of  offerings  and 
sacrifices  we  find  ourselves  confronted  with  several 
questions  which  it  is  not  very  easy  to  answer,  and 
which  have  given  rise  to  great  differences  of  opinion. 
What  was  the  earliest  form  of  sacrifice,  the  bloody  or 
the  unbloody  ?  Both  Tylor  and  Robertson  Smith,  with 
whom  Pfieiderer  concurs,  and  others  besides,  are  satisfied 
that  sacrifice  originally  consisted  in  the  slaying  of  vic- 
tims. And  such  would  doubtless  be  the  case  on  the 
assumption  that  the  earliest  race  of  men  were  hunters 
and  herdsmen,  and  not  tillers  of  the  soil,  whose  offerings 
to  their  gods  would  consist  of  the  first-fruits  of  their 
fields,  of  flowers,  and  other  produce.  But  we  have  also 
to  reckon  with  ichthyophagous  tribes,  which  have  cer- 
tainly not  reached  a  high  stage  of  civilisation,  and  with 
such  primitive  savages  as  the  Root-diggers  of  California. 
How  could  such  as  these  offer  animals  in  sacrifice  ? 
Tylor  and  Robertson  Smith  part  company  here.  While 
the  former  supposes  that  the  earliest  sacrifices  were 
holocausts — that  is,  that  the  whole  of  the  victim  was 


WORSHIP,  PRAYERS,   AND   OFFERINGS.        145 

burned,  and  thus  sent  up  as  a  gift  to  the  heavenly  ones 
—  the    latter   is   of  opinion    that  holocausts  were   of 
comparatively   recent    date.     And,    further,   how    did 
sacrifices  originally  come  to  be  offered  at  all  ?     How 
did  such  observances  arise  ?   What  was  it  that  prompted 
men  to  practise  them  ?      The  usual  explanation  is  a 
very  simple  one.     A  sacrifice,  whatever  be  its  form,  is 
a  gift  or  tribute  presented  to  the  Deity  in  order  to 
secure  his  favour  or  to  avert  his  wrath,  whether  the 
worshippers  regard  it  as  necessary  for  his  maintenance 
and  support,  or  simply  intend  it  as  a  token  of  their 
humility    and    reverence.      Nowadays,    however,    this 
theory  is   rejected,  especially  by  the   anthropologists, 
as  being  too  superficial.     Those  who  maintain  that  the 
worship  of  the  gods  arose  out  of  the  veneration  of  de- 
ceased ancestors  contend,  of  course,  that  the  sacrificial 
repasts  prepared  for  the  latter  were  simply  transferred 
from  them  to  the  higher  spirits.     Eobertson  Smith,  on 
the  other  hand,  has  a  notable  theory  of  a  totally  differ- 
ent character,  which  has  been  cordially  approved  by 
some,  and  utterly  repudiated  by  others.     According  to 
him,  the  sacrificial  victim  was  originally  the  Totem,  or 
sacred  animal,  in  which  dwelt  the  living  god  of  the 
tribe,  and  who  thus  communicated  his  life  to  those  who 
partook  of  the  sacrificial  meal.      Thence,  with  some 
modification,  would  arise  the  common  sacrificial  meal 
of  the  whole  tribe,  and  in  which  the  god  himself,  as 
pertaining  to  the  tribe,  would  participate.    And  thence, 

VOL.  II.  K 


146  SCIENCE   OF  RELIGION. 

as  he  argues,  all  other  kinds  of  sacrifice  would  gradu- 
ally be  evolved. 

These  theories  have  been  advanced  and  defended 
with  such  learning  and  ingenuity  that  it  would  be 
highly  presumptuous  to  condemn  them  hastily.  In 
order  to  refute  even  the  last  of  them,  one  would 
require  to  write  as  large  a  volume  as  that  in  which 
they  have  been  so  persuasively  set  forth,  a  task  which 
would  demand  a  prolonged  and  many-sided  investiga- 
tion, and  one  to  which  my  resources  would  be  quite 
unequal.  And  after  all,  the  result  would  probably  be 
unsatisfactory.  For  Professor  Smith  treats  solely  of  the 
worship  of  the  Semites,  and  indeed  solely  of  their  sacri- 
fices, and  the  original  form  they  took  in  that  family  of 
peoples.  No  doubt  he  compares  them  with  the  observ- 
ances of  non-Semitic  peoples,  and  in  this  domain  also 
he  exhibits  extensive  scholarship.  And  he  conjectures 
that  what  he  claims  to  have  proved  in  the  case  of  the 
Semites  will,  on  closer  investigation,  prove  applicable  to 
other  nations  also.  But  such  investigation  would  re- 
quire so  wide  a  preliminary  study,  and  the  co-operation 
of  so  many  different  experts,  that  it  could  only  be  un- 
dertaken after  long  and  laborious  preparation.  Mean- 
while, at  all  events,  we  know  the  direction  in  which  it 
would  have  to  be  pursued.  And,  whatever  view  may  be 
taken  of  the  theories  of  Professor  Smith,  whose  too  early 
death  we  still  deplore,  his  most  able  and  important  work 
has  unquestionably  paved  the  way  for  such  an  inquiry. 


WORSHIP,  PRAYERS,   AND   OFFERINGS.        147 

At  the  outset  (and  here  I  venture  to  indicate  what, 
in  my  opinion,  is  the  weak  point  in  most  of  the 
theories  mentioned),  we  ought  not  to  confine  ourselves 
to  a  single  kind  of  offerings,  namely,  sacrificial  meals, 
but  should  take  every  kind  into  account.  If  we 
assume  (with  Pfleiderer)  that  nine-tenths  of  religious 
offerings  consist  in  articles  of  food  and  meals,  we  still 
have  to  explain  the  nature  of  the  remaining  tenth. 
And,  besides,  it  may  be  doubted  whether  his  estimate 
is  a  very  accurate  one.  In  the  general  term  "  offering  " 
a  great  many  different  varieties  are  embraced,  such  as 
gifts  presented  (oUatio),  or  objects,  places,  temples,  and 
persons  dedicated  to  the  deity  {consecratio) ,  or  slain  vic- 
tims, whether  connected  with  repasts  or  not  {sacri- 
ficium) — nay,  all  that  is  offered  in  honour  of  the  gods,  to 
please  or  propitiate  them,  all  possessions  or  pleasures 
renounced,  every  act  of  fasting  and  abstinence,  every 
kind  of  self-denial  or  self-sacrifice  which  proceeds  from 
religious  motives  (devotio).  Nor  let  it  be  said  that  these 
last  can  only  be  called  sacrifices  in  a  figurative  sense. 
For,  as  we  have  already  remarked  in  a  different  con- 
nection, this  last  kind  forms  the  culmination  of  all 
sacrifices;  it  is  the  offering  j;«r  excellence,  of  which  all 
the  others  are  but  lower  forms,  and,  as  it  were,  masks 
and  foreshadowings  ;  it  is  the  only  offering  which  is 
actually  associated  with  worship,  not  as  a  mere 
symbol,  but  in  spirit  and  in  truth. 

Now,  we  are  not  here  so  much  concerned  with  the 


148  SCIENCE  OF  RELIGION. 

question  as  to  which  of  these  forms  is  the  oldest,  or  in 
what  order  they  arose  out  of  each  other  or  succeeded 
each  other — a  question,  doubtless,  of  the  utmost  im- 
portance in  connection  with  the  history  of  the  develop- 
ment of  religion — as  with  the  question  whether  in  all 
these  varieties  there  is  revealed  one  and  the  same 
religious  need,  which  ever  seeks  new  forms  of  expres- 
sion, and  which  only  finds  complete  satisfaction  in  the 
forms  last  mentioned.  I  do  not  of  course  suggest  that 
all  who  take  part  in  sacrificial  observances,  as  handed 
down  to  them  by  tradition,  or  as  practised  by  the 
society  to  which  they  belong,  are  actuated  by  the  same 
heartfelt  needs.  For  in  this,  as  in  all  other  actions, 
men's  motives  may  differ  very  widely.  And  so,  too, 
the  various  rites  of  worship  may  be  performed  from 
mere  force  of  habit,  or  because  they  are  considered 
seemly,  and  therefore  must  not  be  neglected,  or  because 
the  worshippers  wish  to  parade  the  munificence  of  their 
offerings,  or  hope  to  secure  the  blessing  of  God  here  or 
hereafter,  or  from  I  know  not  how  many  other  motives. 
We  do  not  inquire  as  to  the  by-ends  or  lower  interests 
that  sometimes  prompt  men  to  perform  these  rites, 
although  such  motives  will  necessarily  exist,  but  solely 
as  to  the  true  and  ultimate  psychological  origin  of  these 
rites.  We  seek  to  discover  their  root,  deeply  implanted 
in  the  human  heart ;  we  search,  as  I  have  repeatedly 
pointed  out,  for  the  essential  and  abiding  element  in 
all  these  changing  forms.     There  can  be  no  doubt  as 


WORSHIP,  PRAYERS,  AND   OFFERINGS.        149 

to  how  we  must  answer  the  question.  The  root  of  these 
sacrificial  observances  consists  in  the  yearning  of  the 
believer  for  abiding  communion  with  that  superhuman 
power  whose  operations  compel  him  to  recognise  its 
existence  as  a  postulate  of  his  thinking  faculty,  of 
whose  sublimity  his  imagination  has  formed  a  concep- 
tion, to  which  he  feels  himself  inwardly  akin,  and  with 
which  he  strives,  so  far  as  humanly  possible,  more  and 
more  to  assimilate  himself.  In  a  word,  it  is  the  long- 
ing of  finite  man,  who  feels  that  he  is  more  than  finite, 
that  there  is  an  infinity  within  him,  to  associate  himself, 
and  to  become  one,  with  the  Infinity  above  him.  The 
means  he  employs  for  this  purpose  will  of  course  cor- 
respond with  the  more  or  less  advanced  development  of 
his  conceptions.  If  he  regards  the  superhuman  powers 
as  being  subject  to  material  needs  like  himself,  or  at 
least  as  being  analogous  to  earthly  powers,  to  the 
princes  and  chiefs  to  whom  he  is  subordinate,  he  will 
take  care  not  to  approach  them  with  empty  hands,  but 
will  offer  them  the  best  gifts  at  his  disposal ;  and  fear- 
ful lest  he  be  found  unworthy  or  impure  when  he 
enters  into  the  presence  of  his  God,  he  will  prepare 
himself  for  it  by  means  of  fasting,  self-denial,  and  all 
kinds  of  purifying  ordinances.  If  he  regards  the  gods 
as  members  of  his  tribe,  just  as  he  considers  his  deceased 
ancestors  still  to  belong  to  it,  or  if  he  looks  upon  them 
as  his  leaders  in  war  and  his  protectors  in  danger  and 
distress,  upon  whom  depends  the  welfare  of  his  home, 


150  SCIENCE  OF  RELIGION. 

his  people,  and  his  country,  he  will  slay  a  victim  in 
their  honour,  and  will  partake  of  it  with  them ;  like 
the  Hindoos,  he  will  strew  the  place  of  sacrifice  for  them 
with  Kus'a-grass,  or  like  the  Eomans,  who  imitated  the 
Greeks  in  this  observance,  he  will  spread  a  banquet  for 
them  on  the  occasion  of  the  ledisternia.  If  he  aims  at 
rivalling  his  gods  to  some  extent  in  extraordinary 
power,  he  will,  like  the  Eed  Indian,  subject  himself  to 
the  severest  personal  sacrifices,  and  will  join  one  of  those 
associations  whose  members  voluntarily  undergo  in- 
tense bodily  torture  in  order  to  harden  themselves. 
When  once  his  gods,  or  at  all  events  the  most  and  the 
chief  of  them,  have  become  dwellers  in  heaven,  he  will 
then  burn  his  sacrifice  upon  the  altar,  either  in  whole 
or  in  part,  of  whatever  nature  the  offering  may  be, 
whether  animal,  man,  or  child,  in  order  thus  to  make  it 
"  pass  through  the  fire "  to  the  deity.  Whenever  he 
fears  that  his  communion  with  his  gods  has  been 
broken  off  through  his  fault,  and  that  they  have  turned 
away  from  him  in  wrath,  he  will  redouble  his  sacrifices 
in  order  that  they  may  serve  as  sin-offerings  and  atone- 
ments, and  he  will  wound  and  maim  himself,  and  even 
bathe  himself  in  the  blood  of  the  victim,  in  token  of  his 
penitence.  In  particular,  in  order  once  for  all  to 
become  a  partaker  in  the  divine  life,  he  will  drink  of 
the  cup  of  life,  carefully  prepared  as  an  earthly  imita- 
tion of  the  cup  of  immortality  quaffed  by  the  gods,  the 
Soma  or  Haoma,  or  whatever  other  name  the  sacred 


WORSHIP,  PRAYERS,   AND   OFFERINGS.        151 

beverage  may  have,  and  he  will  not  merely  offer  it  to 
them,  but  will  drink  it  with  them.     And  not  only  with 
a  view  to  honour  them,  but  to  ally  himself  the  more 
closely  with  them,  he  will  set  apart  a  fixed  place  for  the 
celebration  of  these  sacrificial  rites,  and  this  place  will 
thus  come  to  be  regarded  as  sacred  ;  and  as  he  advances 
in  civilisation  and  artistic  taste,  he  will  not  rest  satisfied 
with  choosing  a  limited  space  on  a  hill-top,  or  a  clear- 
ing in  a  wood,  for  this  purpose,  but  will  erect  a  grand  and 
sumptuous  temple  in  which  the  god  himself  may  dwell 
in  the  midst  of  his  people.     If  he  still  belongs  to  the 
animistic  stage  of  religion,  he  will  take  care  that  the 
divine  spirit  finds  within  his  temple  a  body  to  dwell 
in,  either  a  living  fetish,  or  one  made  with  hands,  an 
idol  in  the  form  either  of  a  man  or  a  beast ;  and  with 
blunt   familiarity  he  will  often  secure  the  idol  with 
chains  in  order  to    prevent   the   god    from    escaping. 
What  childish  and  ridiculous  buffoonery  according  to 
our  modern  notions  !     Yet  the  motives  by  which  it  is 
prompted  still  exist.     When  believers  have  outgrown 
these  puerilities — when  they  are  satisfied   that   their 
god  requires  no  gifts  and  needs  no  food,  and  that  he 
does  not  dwell  in  temples  made  with  hands,  either  on 
Gerizim   or  even   at  Jerusalem,    but   that   he   dwells 
everywhere,  both   around  them   and  in   them  —  then, 
being  men,  they  will  still  feel  impelled  to  signify  the 
nearness  of  their  god  by  means  of  symbolical  rites ; 
they  will  fondly  attach  a  certain  sanctity  to  the  places 


152  SCIENCE  OF  RELIGION. 

where  they  are  accustomed  to  seek  communion  with 
him,  either  in  solitude  or  in  the  congregation,  as  if  the 
breath  of  a  higher  life  were  wafted  on  them  from 
thence  ;  and  they  will  invoke  the  aid  of  art,  and  deem 
no  sacrifices  too  great,  in  order  to  embellish  these  sacred 
places  and  render  them  worthy  of  their  destination. 
In  its  highest  spontaneous  manifestation,  prompted  by 
the  impulse  of  adoring  love,  religious  worship  is  ad- 
mirably typified  in  Mary  of  Bethany.  Even  honest 
utilitarians  shake  their  heads  at  such  conduct  as  hers. 
Is  not  the  money  spent  by  such  devotees  utterly  wasted, 
and  had  it  not  far  better  be  given  to  the  poor  ?  But  a 
wiser  than  they  testifies  that  wheresoever  the  Gospel 
is  preached,  and  the  living  religion  of  love  is  appre- 
ciated, "there  shall  also  this,  that  this  woman  hath 
done,  be  told  for  a  memorial  of  her." 

If  then  religious  w^orship,  in  its  origin  and  essence, 
is  a  striving  after  union  with  God,  and  the  worshipper's 
periodical  escape  from  the  turmoil  of  everyday  life — 
with  its  petty  cares  and  great  sorrows,  its  strife  and 
discord,  its  complete  immersion  in  the  material — in 
order  that  he  may  for  a  while  breathe  a  higher  and 
purer  atmosphere,  the  science  of  religion  must  take 
account  of  every  form  of  cult,  however  insignificant  it 
may  seem,  and  must  endeavour  to  winnow  from  it  the 
pure  grain  of  religious  principle.  Those  who  renounce 
religion  altogether,  because  they  have  become  blind  to 
the  divine  element  within  them,  look  down  with  super- 


WORSHIP,   PRAYERS,   AND   OFFERINGS.        153 

cilious  contempt  on  all  observances  which  in  their  opin- 
ion are  superstitious.  The  scientific  observer  knows 
better ;  but  let  him  beware  of  attempting  to  influence 
such  prejudiced  persons  in  favour  of  public  worship  by 
denying  its  true  character,  or  perhaps  by  representing 
it  as  beneficial  for  the  masses,  who  require  to  be  at- 
tracted by  outward  and  visible  symbols,  or  as  a  means 
of  keeping  men  in  order,  as  a  kind  of  religious  school 
for  adults.  Nor  is  it  sufficient  to  dwell  upon  the  beauty 
and  the  sublimity  of  some  religious  rituals,  and  upon 
the  aesthetic  sentiment  thus  awakened,  although  the 
good  fruit  borne  by  divine  worship  partly  consists  in 
the  religious  emotions  it  is  capable  of  evoking.  Wor- 
ship may  be  attractive,  aesthetic,  sublime,  but  it  must 
be  something  more.  It  must  be  pervaded  with  a 
genuine  and  healthy  mysticism,  it  must  be  inspired 
by  belief,  without  which  it  is  nothing.  I  may  be 
aesthetically  and  even  religiously  affected  by  religious 
ceremonials  which  belong  to  a  totally  different  form  of 
religion  from  mine.  I  may  be  touched,  and  even  feel 
edified,  by  the  words  —  Stahat  mater  dolorosa,  jtixta 
crucem  lachrymosa,  dum  i^endehat  filius,  although  the 
poetry  is  indifferent  and  the  Latin  questionable,  or 
by  the — "Wenn  ich  einmal  soil  scheiden,  so  scheide 
uicht  von  mir  "  of  Bach's  Passion,  in  the  St  Matthew 
version,  although  I  may  be  quite  unable  to  subscribe  to 
the  creed  of  the  period  in  which  Bach  lived.  But  if 
worship  is  to  be  something  more  than  mere  outward 


154  SCIENCE  OF  RELIGION. 

show,  it  must  proceed  from  faith,  from  a  belief  in  the 
reality  of  a  communion  between  man  and  his  G-od, 
between  the  finite  and  the  infinite.  Or,  if  I  may 
venture  for  a  moment  to  clothe  it  in  anthropomorphic 
garb,  worship  must  be  sustained  by  the  belief  that 
when  poor  mortals  feebly  grope  and  search  for  their 
Heavenly  Father,  He  looks  down  upon  His  children 
with  a  smile  of  loving  satisfaction,  and  that  when  they 
cry,  "  Allah,  Allah  !  Yahve  Elohim  !  My  Lord  and 
my  God !  Our  Father  which  art  in  heaven,"  He  will 
not  leave  their  prayer  unanswered  or  send  them  away 
without  a  blessing. 

Let  us  reserve  for  a  new  chapter  a  few  words  on  the 
subject  of  God's  response  to  His  worshippers. 


155 


LECTURE    VII. 

RELIGION   AS  A  SOCIAL   PHENOMENON — THE   CHURCH. 

In  our  last  chapter  we  considered  the  phase  of  worship 
that  consists  in  the  prayers  and  offerings  with  which 
men  approach  their  God.  At  the  same  time,  however, 
we  remarked  that  they  do  so  in  the  confident  belief 
that  they  will  not  seek  that  God  in  vain,  inasmuch  as 
He  reveals  Himself  to  them  in  many  different  ways.- 
This  belief  finds  expression  in  another  phase  of  wor- 
ship :  in  the  oracles  and  portents  in  which  the  believer, 
with  his  imperfect  knowledge  of  nature  and  mankind, 
imagines  he  reads  or  hears  the  will  of  the  gods ;  in 
soothsaying,  which  observes  the  flight  of  birds  or  the 
appearance  of  the  entrails  of  the  victim,  or  casts  lots, 
or  watches  the  position  of  the  stars  and  the  play  of  the 
lightning-flash,  or  attempts  by  various  other  strange 
methods  to  fathom  the  mysteries  of  Providence ;  in  the 
Thora,  or  doctrine,  which  was  doubtless  originally  a 
mere  collection  of  precepts  regarding  the  proper 
manner  of  serving  the  deity,   but   which   afterwards 


156  SCIENCE   OF  RELIGION. 

embraced  the  moral  law  also;  in  the  recitation  and 
interpretation  of  documents  which  were  believed  to 
contain  the  veritable  word  of  God  ;  in  the  free  pro- 
phecy of  inspired  speakers ;  and  even  in  those  dramatic 
representations,  often  associated  with  worship,  which 
may  be  described  in  the  phrase  of  Eauwenhoff  (though 
wrongly  applied  by  him  to  all  worship)  as  "  faith  made 
visible,"  and  in  those  symbolic  observances  which,  on 
a  higher  plane  of  development,  shadow  forth  man's 
belief  in  the  nearness  of  God. 

Were  we  to  attempt  to  describe  each  of  these  forms 
of  divine  revelation,  or  subject  them  all  to  a  psycho- 
logical analysis,  or  sketch  the  history  of  their  develop- 
ment, we  should  have  more  than  ample  material  for  a 
whole  lecture.  And  the  task  would  certainly  be  an 
interesting  one.  We  should  have  to  direct  our  atten- 
tion to  the  persons  who  have  been  regarded  as  the 
interpreters  of  such  revelations  —  sorcerers,  sooth- 
sayers, augurs,  haruspices,  priests,  prophets,  saints — 
and  we  should  thus  be  carried  back  to  a  discussion  of 
the  belief  in  mediators,  of  which  we  have  already 
treated.  This  would,  however,  involve  too  serious  a 
digression  from  the  ontological  inquiry  to  which  this 
course  of  lectures  is  devoted.^ 

We  are  at  present  solely  concerned  to  inquire  what  is 

^  An  admirable  survey  of  the  development  of  ideas  regarding  "  holy 
men  "  is  given  by  0.  Pfleiderer  in  his  '  Eeligionsphilosophie  auf  geschicht- 
licher  Grundlage,'  3rd  ed.,  1896,  pp.  679-727. 


THE  CHURCH.  157 

essential  and  abiding  in  religion.  It  is  of  course  ab- 
surd to  say  that  the  Infinite  makes  His  will  known  by 
visible  or  audible  signs,  or  that  He  reveals  Himself  in 
the  rustling  of  trees  or  the  flight  of  birds.  For  what 
primitive  people  have  spelt  out  of  these  has  been  but 
the  outcome  of  pious  imagination  and  emotion,  the  re- 
sult of  their  own  thoughts  or  hopes  or  fears ;  just  as 
the  essential  feature  in  the  famous  Delphic  oracle  con- 
sisted, not  in  the  ravings  of  the  Pythia,  but  in  the 
interpretation,  often  sensible,  ethical,  and  religious, 
which  the  prophets  put  upon  them.  And  we  are  all 
well  aware  that,  however  far  above  us  the  most  illus- 
trious interpreters  of  divine  revelation  may  be,  however 
superior  in  wisdom  and  insight,  in  piety  and  saintliness, 
they  are  all  but  men  of  like  fashion  with  ourselves, 
differing  from  us  in  capacity  and  talent,  but  not  differ- 
ing from  us  in  nature.  Yet  it  is  certain  that  no  com- 
munion of  man  with  his  God  (such  communion  being, 
as  we  have  seen,  the  essence  of  worship)  is  possible  or 
conceivable,  if  all  the  aspirations  of  the  pious  soul,  all 
its  longings  and  entreaties  for  help,  light,  and  support, 
are  to  end  in  the  despairing  cynicism  of  Heinrich  Heine, 
"  No  one  but  a  fool  expects  an  answer " ;  if,  in  short, 
men  were  to  give  up  seeking  the  face  of  their  God  in 
despair  of  getting  a  direct  answer,  although  at  the  same 
time  well  aware  that  the  voice  of  God  is  only  to  be 
heard  within  their  own  inmost  soul  or  in  the  inspired 
words  of  others.     And,  in  the  second  place,  there  is  no 


158  SCIENCE   OF  RELIGION. 

doubt  that  religious  persons  will  always  feel  the  need 
of  typifying  their  belief  in  fellowship  with  the  deity  by 
means  of  some  symbol  or  observance,  corresponding  as 
far  as  possible  with  their  disposition  and  development. 
All  forms  are  transitory,  because  mankind  itself  is 
never  stationary ;  but  a  religion  without  forms  is  lost 
in  indefiniteness.  And,  lastly,  to  create  or  to  recast 
these  forms,  and  to  clothe  the  constant  religious  element 
in  images  adapted  to  the  wants  of  the  most  advanced 
members  of  the  existing  generation,  is  the  vocation  of 
those  who  are  not  satisfied  to  be  merely  the  guardians 
of  a  venerable  tradition,  and  the  learned  interpreters 
of  sacred  texts,  but  who,  as  prophets  themselves,  bear 
witness  in  inspired  language  to  what  God  has  implanted 
in  their  hearts ;  and  not  merely  as  ministers  of  the  cult, 
but  also  as  free  witnesses  of  the  divine  spirit,  as  poets 
by  the  grace  of  God,  as  religious  thinkers,  as  leaders 
of  religious  life — in  a  word,  as  persons  in  whom,  as 
Pfleiderer  has  finely  expressed  it,  "  we  recognise  and 
gratefully  revere  the  radiation  of  divine  light  individu- 
alised in  manifold  ways,  and  the  embodiment  of  divine 
life." 

This  naturally  leads  us  to  our  subject  of  to-day — 
religion  as  a  social  phenomenon  —  or  the  church.  I 
have  already  stated  my  interpretation  of  the  word 
Church,  and  I  desire  to  adhere  to  it.  In  the  concrete 
sense,  we  understand  the  word  to  signify  "  all  the  more 
or  less  independent  religious  organisations  which  em- 


TEE   CHURCH.  159 

brace  a  number  of  kindred  communities,  and  in  general, 
in  the  abstract,  the  whole  domain  of  religion  in  so  far 
as  it  manifests  itself  substantively  in  society."  ^  We 
have  also  already  inquired  how  these  independent 
institutions  have  been  developed  out  of  small  com- 
munities which  contained  the  germs  of  the  ethical 
religions,  and  which  had  sprung  up  within  the  pale  of 
those  religions  of  the  tribe  or  the  folk  where  state  and 
church,  as  yet  undistinguished,  were  so  closely  united 
that  membership  of  the  folk  almost  necessarily  involved 
veneration  of  its  gods  and  observance  of  its  traditional 
rites.  "\Ye  have  likewise  answered  the  question  how 
far  the  church,  which  is  sometimes  regarded  as  the 
chief  obstacle  to  the  progress  of  religion,  is  really  a 
most  potent  factor  in  its  development,  and  under  what 
circumstances  on  the  other  hand  it  may  become  a  hin- 
drance to  that  development.  We  need  not  now  revert 
to  these  matters.  Nor  can  we  enter  upon  further  ques- 
tions, however  interesting,  which  fall  beyond  our  present 
scope.  We  cannot,  for  instance,  stop  to  inquire  into  the 
relative  merits  of  the  various  churches  and  sects,  or 
attempt  to  decide  which  of  them  is  most  conducive  to 
the  advancement  of  religion  in  society.  Is,  for  example, 
the  cause  of  religion  best  served  by  a  mighty  organisa- 
tion like  the  Eoman  Catholic  Church,  which  inspires 
awe,  and  with  which  even  the  temporal  powers  have 
to  reckon,  while  they  have  no  difficulty  in  vindicating 

^  See  vol.  i.  p.  138,  and  for  the  whole  discussion  pp.  136-146. 


160  SCIENCE   OF  RELIGION. 

their  supremacy  over  the  numerous  rent  and  riven 
Protestant  Churches  and  parties  ?  Or  does  not  the 
leaden  weight  of  such  a  hierarchy  crush  out  living 
religion,  and  does  not  so  inexorable  a  discipline  make 
her  feared  rather  than  loved  ?  Nor  can  we  here  treat 
of  the  difficult  problem  of  the  proper  relation  between 
church  and  state,  except  in  so  far  as  it  concerns  the 
vital  question  we  shall  have  to  answer  presently.  Such 
questions  as  these,  I  admit,  are  neither  purely  historical 
nor  purely  practical,  for  they  have  their  theoretical 
phases  also,  and  in  that  respect  may  be  said  to  belong 
to  the  department  of  philosophy ;  but  they  belong 
rather  to  the  philosophical  doctrine  of  religion,  and 
therefore  find  their  proper  place  in  the  dogmatic 
teaching  of  the  various  churches.  And  although  the 
inquirer  may  have  strong  convictions  on  these  subjects, 
as  I  myself  have  on  the  last-mentioned  of  them,  they 
are  not  strictly  pertinent  to  the  science  of  religion. 

Let  us  therefore  keep  in  view  the  object  of  the 
ontological  investigation  in  which  we  are  now  engaged. 
We  are  now  in  quest  of  that  constant  and  permanent 
principle  which  underlies  ever-changing  forms,  which 
is  essential  to  religious  life  under  all  possible  circum- 
stances, and  which  is  a  fundamental  of  that  life  in  its 
normal  condition.  We  are  not  now  concerned  to  ask 
if  the  church  is  conducive  or  prejudicial  to  religion — 
a  question  we  have  to  some  extent  answered  already. 
Though  we  are  convinced  that,  while  the  faults  and 


THE   CHURCH.  161 

failings  of  the  church's  champions  have  injured  religion, 
she  herself  has  promoted  it,  yet  the  same  may  be  said 
of  the  older  forms  of  religious  communities  which  she 
has  superseded,  but  which  were  nevertheless  in  their 
day  the  indispensable  and  only  possible  organisations 
for  the  maintenance  of  religion.  For  what  is  useful  at 
any  given  period  may  become  superfluous  in  a  period 
of  higher  development.  Nor  do  we  inquire  whether 
the  existing  churches  conform  to  the  plane  of  develop- 
ment which  religion  has  now  reached.  For  the  answer 
would  require  to  be,  "  If  not,  try  to  purify  and  reform 
them,  so  as  to  bring  them  into  accord  with  the  higher 
needs  of  the  day."  Or  may  not  the  question  rather  be 
put  thus :  "  Has  the  organisation  of  religion  in  its  most 
recent  form — that  is,  the  self-dependent  church — at- 
tained to  such  a  pinnacle  of  development  as  to  entitle 
us  to  say  that  an  ethical  religion,  as  a  condition  of  its 
existence,  must  always  be  necessarily  embodied  in  a 
church  ? "  For  we  have  already  pointed  to  the  pos- 
sibility of  a  higher  form  of  religion  being  developed 
out  of  the  ethical ;  and  who  would  venture  to  predict 
the  nature  of  the  embodiment  it  might  assume?  No 
one,  however,  can  doubt  that  religious  persons  of  like 
views  and  sentiments  will  always  cling  together,  as 
man's  social  propensity  prompts  him  to  associate  with 
kindred  spirits ;  but  such  small  cliques  or  societies, 
leagues  or  communities,  are  not  churches  in  our  sense 
of  the  word.     The  question  our  science  has  to  ask  is 

VOL.  II.  L 


162  SCIENCE   OF  RELIGION. 

rather  this  :  "  Does  religion,  in  its  own  nature,  and  with 
a  view  to  its  perfect  evolution,  require  so  mighty  a 
mechanism,  so  elaborate  an  association  as  the  church, 
even  were  its  forms  and  ordinances  to  assume  a  totally 
different  character  from  those  of  the  present  day  ? " 
And  when  I  say  tliat  our  science  must  at  least  search 
for  an  answer,  this  of  course  does  not  imply  that  I 
claim  to  have  yet  discovered  it.  Or  rather,  let  me  state 
plainly  that  I  have  an  answer,  but  that  I  shall  state 
it  as  a  mere  hypothesis,  the  result  of  study  and  reflec- 
tion, which  will,  however,  require  to  be  further  tested 
by  facts,  and  to  be  compared  with  the  result  of  other 
scientific  researches,  before  it  can  claim  to  rank  as  an 
established  theory.  In  short,  all  I  can  hope  to  do  is 
to  offer  a  humble  contribution  towards  the  solution  of 
this  intricate  problem. 

Two  of  the  possible  answers  may  be  at  once  rejected. 
First,  that  of  those  who  regard  religion  as  a  mere  pass- 
ing phenomenon,  or  as  a  phase  in  human  development. 
They  will  probably  say  that  the  existence  of  a  church 
is  an  indispensable  condition  of  the  existence  of  a  reli- 
gion, but  that  the  churches  will  inevitably  die  out  with 
religion.  Secondly,  the  answer  of  those  who,  whether 
they  distinguish  between  religion  and  church,  or  con- 
sider them  absolutely  identical,  fondly  regard  their 
own  church  as  the  only  true  church,  and  the  only 
way  to  salvation,  and  as  a  divine  and  therefore 
eternal  institution,  destined  some  day  to  supersede  all 


THE   CHURCH.  163 

others  and  to  embrace  the  wliole  of  humanity.  Well, 
we  shall  not  quarrel  with  them.  What  they  expect  is 
not  in  itself  impossible,  although  it  is  not  very  prob- 
able, and  although  some  of  the  very  churches  that 
indulge  in  this  aspiration  seem  to  be  losing  power  and 
influence  instead  of  making  conquests  and  gaining 
ground.  Yet  no  scientific  research,  no  conclusive 
demonstration,  avails  in  the  slightest  degree  to  shake 
their  firm  conviction.  There  is  indeed  an  undeniable 
grandeur  and  sublimity  in  this  creation  of  faith.  A 
church  sprung  from  the  blood  of  so  many  martyrs, 
reared  amidst  humiliations  and  persecutions,  ever  fight- 
ing and  struggling,  yet  ever  extending  her  sway  among 
the  nations,  a  church  militant  on  earth,  a  church  tri- 
umphant in  heaven,  and  destined  to  triumph  at  last 
in  this  world  also — this  is  truly  a  bold  and  impressive 
conception.  The  only  objection  to  it  is,  that  the  con- 
ception is  bound  up  with  a  specific  form  of  church, 
and  that  perpetuity  and  imperishableness  are  ascribed 
to  what  is  really  a  transitory,  perishable,  mortal  body, 
although  that  body  is  of  a  moral  and  not  of  a  physical 
kind.  Let  me  remind  you  of  the  profound  saying  of 
Goethe  that  "  everything  transitory  is  but  a  similitude." 
No  man  of  science  would  therefore  venture  to  deny 
that  this  conception  of  a  universal  church,  although 
erroneously  bound  up  with  mere  outward  human  insti- 
tutions, contains  the  germ  of  a  great  truth,  and  is  the 
similitude  of  a  well-founded  expectation. 


164  SCIENCE   OF  RELIGION. 

Some  students  of  the  philosophy  of  religion  take  a 
diametrically  opposite  view.  They  think  that  the  church 
has  had  its  day,  and  this  opinion  is  even  gaining  ground 
among  those  who  prize  and  uphold  religion.  Let  us 
listen  to  what  some  of  them  say.  "  Agreement  of  views 
regarding  the  supersensual,"  says  Eauwenhoff  (p.  842 
seq.),  "  does  not  of  itself  constitute  a  religious  com- 
munity. Such  a  community  only  arises  when,  in  view 
of  the  supersensual  power  recognised  by  a  number  of 
people  in  common,  a  certain  similarity  of  sentiment 
has  been  awakened  in  their  emotional  life,  giving  rise 
to  the  need  of  union,  and  forming  a  bond  of  brother- 
hood." Thus  far  I  agree  with  him,  except  that  I  would 
substitute  the  word  "  superhuman  "  for  "  supersensual." 
But  on  the  next  page  he  continues :  "  When  we  now 
ask  in  what  form  of  religious  body  the  requisites  men- 
tioned can  best  be  realised,  I  would  answer — in  that  of 
the  independent  community.  This  must  always  be  a 
local  community,  which  may  indeed  enter  into  a  cer- 
tain administrative  alliance  with  similar  communities 
established  elsewhere,  but  must  possess  entire  inde- 
pendence of  life  and  organisation.  Such  is  certainly 
the  truest  and  most  natural  realisation  of  the  idea 
of  a  religious  community."  And  in  a  similar  sense 
Pfleiderer  (p.  745  seq.)  is  of  opinion  that  a  common 
religious  life  finds  its  natural,  if  not  its  only  true,  home 
in  local  church  organisations.  In  the  early  days  of 
Christianity,  as  he  contends,  such  local  organisations 


THE   CHURCH.  165 

were  the  only  manifestations  ("  Erscheinungen  ")  of  the 
spiritual  church.  "  They  will  always  be  indispensable. 
On  the  other  hand,  the  permanence  of  their  coalition 
into  large  organisms,  like  our  various  modern  denom- 
inations, however  inevitable  in  the  meanwhile,  cannot 
be  inferred  either  from  the  nature  of  the  church  or 
from  that  of  religion  itself.  The  confessions  which 
derive  their  names  from  Luther  or  Calvin  or  the  Pope 
are,  according  to  the  evangelical  or  Biblical  conception 
of  the  church,  mere  schisms,  mere  degenerate  deviations 
from  the  true  nature  of  the  church,  and  possess  no  ideal 
right  of  existence."  I  must,  however,  beg  to  differ  from 
both  of  these  thinkers,  and  I  do  so  from  strong  convic- 
tion. There  is  no  church,  according  to  them,  except 
the  one  ideal  spiritual  church,  which,  however,  has  no 
real  existence.  In  this  they  agree;  for  the  adminis- 
trative bond,  which  Eauwenhoff  admits  to  be  a  possible 
bond  of  union  between  similar  local  communities,  does 
not  constitute  a  church.  The  true  and  proper  realisa- 
tion of  their  ideal  church  is  to  be  found  in  the  local 
communities.  Such  was  the  state  of  matters  at  the 
beginning  of  the  Christian  period,  and  to  that  state  we 
must  return.  That  is  to  say,  that  the  religious  develop- 
ment of  some  twenty  centuries  is  to  be  regarded  as  a 
huge  aberration,  that  we  must  wipe  it  all  out,  and 
begin  afresh  at  the  beginning.  This  is  surely  not  the 
teaching  of  the  philosophy  of  history,  but  rather  a  flat 
denial  of  its  plain  lessons.     And  this  opinion  is  all  the 


166  SCIENCE  OF  RELIGION. 

more  surprising  in  a  scholar  like  Pfleiderer,  who  in 
the  immediately  preceding  pages  of  the  same  work 
gives  us  so  clear  and  admirable  an  historical  survey. 
The  churches  that  have  been  formed  by  the  union  of 
local  communities  have  assuredly  not  all  been  ideal. 
Even  their  noblest  representatives,  while  continuing  to 
serve  and  vindicate  them,  will  be  the  first  to  admit 
that  they  are  but  imperfect  realisations  of  the  ideals 
cherished  by  their  founders.  Yet  they  are  not  on  that 
account  mere  unholy  aberrations.  They  have  rather 
been  earnest  attempts  to  realise  the  ideal  church,  which 
after  all  is  only  a  conception,  in  accordance  wdth  the 
needs  of  different  peoples  in  different  periods.  They 
are  not  mere  creations  of  human  caprice  or  ambition, 
but  have  emanated  from  the  irresistible  impulses  of 
religious  emotion,  and  therefore  from  the  very  essence 
of  religion. 

If  it  be  said  that  they  have  ceased  to  satisfy  the 
religious  needs  of  the  most  advanced  thinkers  of  the 
present  day,  and  that  it  is  impossible  now  to  reform 
them  in  principle,  be  it  so.  That  might  at  least  be  a 
matter  for  discussion.  Or  rather,  since  science  can 
pronounce  no  opinion  in  the  matter,  let  every  one 
solve  the  question  for  himself.  Some  people  may  de- 
cline to  try,  excusing  themselves  "on  religious  grounds," 
like  Schiller  when  he  declined,  ans  Religion,  to  adhere 
to  any  definite  religious  confession.  But  those  who 
really  have  any  religion  at  all  will  always  feel  the 


THE  CHURCH.  167 

need  of  attaching  themselves  to  persons  of  like  senti- 
ments and  of  equally  advanced  development,  with  a 
view  to  foster  their  religion  by  means  of  common 
religions  observances.  The  associations  thus  formed 
will  of  course  be  small  and  purely  local  at  first.  But 
let  it  not  be  supposed  that  the  matter  can  rest  there. 
What  has  always  happened  in  the  past  will  happen 
again.  These  local  associations  will  seek  support  from 
others,  not  because  they  require  an  administrative 
bond  for  their  material  maintenance,  but  because  they 
are  children  of  the  same  spirit,  and  feel  that  they  are 
akin  to  each  other.  When  they  are  convinced  of  the 
truth  of  the  religious  doctrine  and  of  the  soundness 
of  its  principles,  they  will  proclaim  it  publicly  by 
preaching  and  writing,  and  thus  necessarily  institute 
a  propaganda.  They  will  perhaps  prefer  to  call  their 
union  of  local  communities  a  Brotherhood  or  a  League, 
rather  than  a  church ;  yet  it  will  be  a  church  all  the 
same,  although  it  may  differ  widely  in  principle  and 
in  organisation  from  all  the  churches  hitherto  known. 
It  will  be  a  church,  a  new  church,  and,  let  us  hope, 
a  more  excellent  realisation  of  the  great  ideal  to  which 
others  have  aspired,  though  without  entire  success. 

History  proves  that  this  has  always  been  the  course 
of  events,  with  those  religions  at  any  rate  which  have 
entirely  outgrown  the  animistic  stage.  No  ethical 
religion  has  ever  been  satisfied  with  founding  a  few 
isolated  local  communities,  but  all  have   striven,  and 


168  SCIENCE  OF  RELIGION. 

as  a  rule  successfully,  for  the  promotion  of  some  kind 
of  general  union.  At  first  it  is  usually  the  state,  or 
rather  the  sovereign,  that  promotes  this  union,  but  it 
is  not  a  union  based  solely  on  the  unity  of  the  state. 
A  priesthood  of  more  or  less  hierarchical  organisation, 
a  sacred  Scripture  recognised  as  a  divine  revelation, 
and  sometimes  even  a  creed  imposed  on  all  believers ; 
but,  above  all,  obedience  to  the  same  commandments, 
observance  of  the  same  rites,  celebration  of  the  same 
festivals,  and  adherence  to  the  same  principles  —  all 
this  raises  such  a  community  above  the  position  of  a 
mere  agglomeration  of  like-minded,  yet  entirely  inde- 
pendent associations,  and  exalts  it  to  the  rank  of  a 
substantive  church.  In  treating  of  this  question  people 
are  too  apt  to  limit  their  horizon  to  their  own  religion, 
as  if  the  churches  of  Eome,  or  England,  or  Geneva, 
were  the  only  churches  in  existence.  In  order  to 
generalise  with  any  certainty,  we  require  to  study  the 
origins,  principles,  and  character  of  other  churches  than 
the  Christian.  For  a  great  deal  more  is  expected  of 
the  science  of  religion  than  of  the  Christian,  the  Judaic, 
or  any  other  system  of  theology.  Although  we  cannot 
at  present  enter  upon  so  comprehensive  a  study,  or 
even  state  its  results,  I  may  at  least  indicate  a  few 
illustrations.  Long  before  the  Sasanides,  the  founders 
and  rulers  of  the  Middle-Persian  Empire,  established 
the  religion  of  Zarathushtra,  after  the  year  a.d.  226, 
as   an   organised    state    church,   on    the   Jewish   and 


THE   CHURCH.  169 

Christian  models,  the  Avesta,  the  sacred  Scriptures, 
had  spoken  of  a  visible  sway  of  Ahura  Mazda  on  earth, 
fighting  against  the  powers  of  Deceit,  a  reflection  of 
his  perfect  sway  in  heaven.  To  this  system  belonged 
a  fixed  creed,  imposed  on  all,  a  recognised  doctrine,  an 
ordained  priesthood,  headed  by  the  Zarathushtrotema, 
whose  authority  extended  over  all  the  eastern  and 
north-western  provinces,  the  holy  city  of  Eagha  being 
its  centre,  where  the  high  priest  alone,  to  the  exclusion 
even  of  the  sovereign  of  the  land,  reigned  supreme. 
This  was  undoubtedly  a  church,  whether  different  from, 
or  a  coalition  with,  the  state  church  of  the  Adiae- 
menides,  that  of  Media  and  Persia,  which  appealed  to 
the  same  Scriptures,  but  whose  priests  were  exclusively 
magi,  a  tribe  or  class  nowhere  mentioned  in  the  Avesta. 
And  was  not  Judaism,  afterwards  followed  on  a 
grander  scale  by  Islam,  a  genuine  church  also  ?  It 
was  a  church  whose  members  were  scattered  all  over 
the  civilised  world,  and  which  had  its  local  synagogues 
everywhere,  while  its  centre  was  Jerusalem,  where  its 
revered  high  priest  and  the  Sanhedrin  held  exclusive 
sway.  In  Buddhism  we  find  another  striking  illus- 
tration. This  was  certainly  not  a  church  at  first,  nor 
even  indeed  a  religion  in  the  proper  sense.  In  its 
origin  it  was  simply  an  order  of  mendicant  monks, 
similar  to  others  which  had  sprung  up  within  the  pale 
of  Brahmanism.  But  around  the  monks  was  soon 
gathered  a  body  of  lay  brethren,  who  were  not  bound 


170  SCIENCE  OF  RELIGION, 

to  obey  all  the  precepts  of  the  order.  As  they  rejected 
the  Veda,  which  all  Brahmans  revered  as  the  divine 
revelation,  as  they  equalised  all  castes,  and  even  persons 
who  belonged  to  no  recognised  caste  at  all,  and  freely 
admitted  all  men  to  the  blessed  hope  of  salvation,  they 
could  not  but  be  regarded  as  a  heretical  sect,  and  they 
were  therefore  compelled  to  set  up  an  independent  or- 
ganisation of  their  own.  And  ere  long  they  possessed  all 
the  characteristics  of  a  church — church  fathers,  saints, 
and  spiritual  heads,  and  councils  which  laid  down 
their  discipline  and  doctrine  in  sacred  writings  of  their 
own.  The  stories  told  of  a  great  council  held  immedi- 
ately after  the  iSTirvana  of  the  Buddha,  and  of  other 
councils  besides,  may  be  unhistorical ;  but  it  is  certain 
that  a  council  was  held  in  the  reign  of  King  As'oka, 
towards  the  close  of  the  third  century  before  Christ, 
and  that  a  list  of  the  canonical  scriptures  was  there 
drawn  up  by  the  king's  command,  as  appears  from  a 
genuine  inscription  relating  to  that  monarch.  In  the 
Sangha,  or  community,  one  of  the  three  jewels  as  they 
are  called,  Buddhism  possessed  the  germ  of  a  church, 
a  germ  which  did  not  fail  to  develop.  Several  Buddh- 
istic churches  were  accordingly  formed,  the  most  im- 
portant being  probably  that  which  has  its  headquarters 
in  Ceylon,  and  another  whose  two  sovereign  pontiffs,  the 
great  Lamas,  reside  in  Tibet.  The  hierarchy,  customs, 
and  institutions  of  the  latter  are,  externally  at  least, 
so  similar  to  those  of  the  Eoman  Catholics,  that  the 


THE  CHURCH.  171 

pious  Jesuit  missionaries  of  Tibet  declared  that  the 
devil  had  played  them  the  abominable  trick  of  cari- 
caturing their  holy  ^lother  Church. 

But  perhaps  some  one  will  try  to  refute  my  conten- 
tion by  repeating  the  now  somewhat  exploded  argument, 
that  we  have  no  right  to  assume  that  what  has  hap- 
pened in  the  past  will  happen  again  in  the  future. 
No  doubt  we  are  exploring  a  province  where  we  cannot 
predict  any  future  event  with  absolute  certainty,  as 
the  astronomer  predicts  eclipses  of  the  sun  or  the 
moon;  yet,  while  our  expectations  as  to  what  will 
happen  in  the  future  can  never  be  more  than  conjec- 
tures or  hypotheses,  they  are  not  mere  baseless  fancies, 
but  rest  upon  solid  foundations.  And  if  we  cherish 
the  belief  that,  wherever  religious  communities  of  kin- 
dred spirits  have  been  formed,  they  will  naturally  grow 
into  churches,  our  expectation  is  founded  on  our  know- 
ledge of  human  nature  and  of  the  essence  of  religion. 

Concerning  human  nature  I  need  not  say  much.  I 
need  of  course  hardly  remind  you  of  the  familiar  truth 
that  man  is  a  social  being,  yet  it  is  a  truth  we  must 
be  careful  not  to  overlook.  The  sense  of  weakness 
he  feels  in  isolation  impels  him  to  seek  support  in 
others.  And  it  is  not  merely  his  weakness  in  relation 
to  the  external  world,  but  weakness  as  regards  himself. 
If  his  thoughts  and  opinions  find  no  response,  he  begins 
involuntarily  to  distrust  their  soundness  and  accuracy, 
and  to  ask  whether  he  is  not  deceiving  himself.     And 


172  SCIENCE   OF  RELIGION. 

more  particularly  when  a  new  conviction  has  burst 
upon  him,  a  conviction  opposed  to  everything  he  has 
been  taught  and  to  all  he  hears  from  others,  he  feels 
the  need  of  sympathy  to  strengthen  and  encourage 
him.  He  enters  with  fear  and  trembling  upon  the 
new  path,  and  hesitates  to  enter  it  alone.  Solitary  great 
men  indeed  there  are,  understood  by  none  of  their  con- 
temporaries, outstanding  above  them  all,  who  yet  cling 
stedfastly  to  their  sacred  convictions,  confident  that 
"  wisdom  will  be  justified  of  her  children  " ;  but  these 
are  very  rare  apparitions  in  the  history  of  humanity. 
All  ordinary  men  require  others  to  agree  and  co-operate 
with  them.  And  thus  there  arise  societies,  leagues, 
parties,  and  sects  in  every  domain  of  human  life.  And 
so,  too,  we  find  that  small  religious  communities  will 
look  around  them  for  kindred  spirits  to  assist  them  in 
the  promotion  of  objects  which  tliey  could  not  attain 
unaided. 

As  individual  men  and  small  societies  thus  seek  to 
gain  encouragement  in  their  ideals,  and  co-operation  in 
their  aims,  from  the  sympathy  and  alliance  of  others, 
so  every  one  who  entertains  a  profound  and  living 
conviction  will  long  to  give  it  utterance.  Convinced 
that  no  God  is  so  great  and  mighty  as  theirs,  or  (as  the 
more  advanced  express  it)  that  salvation  is  only  to  be 
found  in  His  service  and  in  communion  with  Him,  the 
adherents  of  most  religions  do  their  utmost  to  extend 
His  sway.     Even  during   the   period  of   the   nature- 


THE  CHURCH.  173 

religions,  when  folk  and  religion  were  inseparable, 
the  chief  aim,  both  of  conquests  and  of  the  peaceful 
diffusion  of  any  given  form  of  civilisation,  was  usually 
to  extend  the  dominions  of  the  national  relicfion  and 
the  national  god.  The  wars  waged  by  the  Assyrians, 
for  instance,  were  expressly  declared  to  be  wars  of  the 
god  Assur,  and  the  wars  of  the  Israelites  to  be  the 
wars  of  Yahve.  Whenever  the  Assyrians  conquered  a 
new  province,  they  introduced  into  it  the  worship  of 
their  god ;  and  when  they  succeeded  in  capturing  the 
gods  of  their  enemies,  they  would  only  restore  them  to 
their  worshippers  after  inscribing  upon  the  images  a 
declaration  of  the  superiority  and  glory  of  their  own 
god  Assur.  One  of  the  lost  Nasks  of  the  Zend-Avesta 
of  the  Sasanides,  according  to  an  extract  given  by  the 
Dinkard,  lays  it  down  that  conquered  enemies  must 
not  be  spared  unless  they  not  only  bow  down  before 
the  King  of  kings  and  adopt  the  Iranian  nationality, 
but  declare  their  readiness  to  serve  the  sacred  yazatas 
of  the  Zarathushtrian  creed.^  And  so,  too,  Confu- 
cianism penetrated  into  Japan  along  with  the  Chinese 
civilisation  ;  and  Vishnuism,  S'ivaism,  Buddhism,  and  a 
combination  of  the  last  two,  found  their  way,  partly 
into  Further  India,  and  partly  into  the  Indian  Archi- 
pelago, along  with  the  Hindoo  civilisation. 

The  higher  ethical  religions,  especially  those   that 

1  Ganaba-sar-nijad,  in  Dink.,  Bk.  Till.,  chap.  xxvi.  §  22,  in  West, 
'  Pahlavi  Texts,'  iv.  p.  88  seq. 


174  SCIENCE   OF  RELIGION. 

have  shaken  off  their  particularism  in  whole  or  in 
part,  are  not  unaptly  called  by  Professor  Max  Miiller 
missionary  religions.  Pious  missionaries  go  forth  to 
proclaim  the  glad  tidings  of  salvation  to  those  who 
still  walk  in  darkness  and  ignorance.  Such  were  the 
emissaries  of  Pharisaic  Judaism,  and  those  of  Buddhism, 
who  were  the  first  to  set  the  example,  and  those  of 
Christianity  and  of  Islam,  although  these  two,  the 
latter  in  particular,  now  and  then  used  the  argument 
of  the  sword.  Every  man  who  has  a  conviction,  if 
only  clear  and  intelligible,  feels  impelled  to  convince 
others.  But  the  impulse  is  strongest  when  his 
religious  convictions  are  concerned,  as  they  are  most 
deeply  rooted  in  his  heart  and  his  inmost  being.  And 
the  result  is  inevitable.  Eeligion  cannot  possibly 
remain  partitioned  among  little  local  societies,  either 
independent  of  each  other,  or  slenderly  connected  by 
some  external  tie ;  but  these  will  gradually  be  merged 
in  a  greater  community,  which  will  be  conscious  of  its 
unity  in  spite  of  all  local  differences.  In  its  present 
stage  of  development  at  least,  religion  cannot  live 
and  progress  within  the  narrow  bounds  of  a  small  and 
isolated  community,  like  an  eagle  cooped  up  in  a  cage. 
To  bind  it  to  this  primitive  form  would  be  a  retrograde 
step,  just  as  it  would  be  a  reactionary  measure  to 
dissolve  great  states,  and  to  hand  over  the  whole  task 
of  civilisation  to  the  care  of  independent  civic  com- 
munities.    Such  a  step  would  be  inconsistent  with  its 


THE   CHURCH.  175 

very  nature.  If,  as  we  have  said,  man's  sense  of  kin- 
ship with  God  is  one  of  the  foundations  of  reHgion, 
that  sense  naturally  gives  rise  to  a  feeling  of  mutual 
fellowship  among  men,  as  being  worshippers  of  the 
same  God,  and  children  of  one  Father.  At  the  same 
time  the  differences  among  men  in  their  views  of  life, 
and  particularly  their  differences  in  development,  will 
always,  or  for  a  long  time  at  least,  prevent  either 
Christians  or  Buddhists  from  forming  a  single  great 
church  union,  and  from  establishing  some  uniform 
mode  of  worship,  even  when  they  are  satisfied  that 
they  all  adore  the  self -same  God.  A  plurality  of 
religions  will,  therefore,  doubtless,  be  the  rule  at  first. 
But  every  new  and  original  conception  of  religious 
life — that  is,  every  essentially  new  religion  other  than 
a  mere  sect  founded  upon  some  subordinate  difference 
in  dooma  or  ritual,  and  other  than  the  mere  hallucina- 
tion  of  some  fanatic — will  find  itself  compelled,  with 
a  view  to  its  own  maintenance  and  promotion,  to 
objectivise  itself  in  some  kind  of  league  of  sympa- 
thisers, which,  name  it  as  you  please,  is  simply  what  is 
commonly  known  as  a  church. 

I  have  said  that  it  is  not  our  business  to  define  the 
relations  that  ought  to  subsist  between  church  and 
state.  That  question  belongs  to  political  rather  than  to 
religious  science.  Nor  can  it  be  solved  by  means  of 
any  theory  of  general  application;  for  it  partakes  of 
a  practical  nature,  depending  upon  historic  conditions, 


176  SCIENCE   OF  RELIGION. 

of  which  account  must  be  taken.  We  certainly  cannot 
concur  with  the  estimable  Eichard  Eothe,  whose  ideal 
conception  of  the  state,  according  but  little  with  reality, 
and  in  my  opinion  quite  impracticable,  has  led  him  to 
advocate  the  absorption  of  the  church  by  the  state, 
while  the  state  should  in  future  be  charged  with  the 
whole  of  the  tasks  hitherto  incumbent  on  the  church. 
This  is  going  still  further  than  the  view  recently  pro- 
pounded, that  state  and  school  should  together  take 
over  from  the  church  the  whole  guardianship  of  the 
moral  life  of  the  nation. ^  iSTow  the  state  is  precisely 
the  least  qualified  body,  and  therefore  the  least  entitled 
to  superintend,  to  promote,  and  to  regulate  the  religious 
life.  One  would  rather  intrust  this  duty  to  the  school, 
to  science,  to  the  family,  although  even  these  could 
only  partially  fulfil  it.  What  was  possible  on  the 
naturistic  plane  —  though  even  then  the  priesthood 
always  enjoyed  a  certain  independence — is  impossible 
now  that  religion  has  attained  its  majority.  An 
ethical  religion  requires  to  have  a  voice  of  its  own, 
and  is  fully  entitled  to  it.  Whatever  attitude  the 
state  thinks  fit  to  take  up  towards  the  various 
churches,  in  so  far  as  their  external  organisation  is 
concerned,  and  however  properly  it  may  subject  them 
to  the   laws  of   public  order,  it  can   no  more  assert 

^  J.    Unold,    Grundlegung    fiir    eine    Moderne    Practisch  -  Ethische 
Weltanschauung :  Leipzig,  1896. 


THE  CHURCH.  177 

authority  over  religious  life  and  thought  than  it  can 
dictate  the  methods  to  be  followed,  or  the  results  to 
be  aimed  at  by  science,  or  the  rules  and  directions  to  be 
observed  by  art.  There  is  a  growing  inclination  nowa- 
days to  extend  the  state's  sphere  of  action,  and  to 
impose  upon  it  duties  which  for  centuries  past  have 
been  performed  by  individuals  or  by  independent  asso- 
ciations. Whether  this  is  wise,  or  whether  things  will 
be  done  better  under  the  new  system  than  under  the 
old,  I  will  not  venture  to  state  my  opinion.  But  I 
may  at  least  express  my  strong  conviction  that  the 
state  will  be  ill-advised  if  it  lays  hand  upon  religion, 
or  presumes  to  meddle  with  the  internal  affairs  of  the 
church.  Among  the  Germanic  peoples  at  least  any 
such  attempt  would  assuredly  meet  with  overwhelming 
opposition.  Let  governments,  therefore,  beware  of 
attempting  to  invade  the  sanctuary  of  man's  spiritual 
life. 

Conversely,  as  I  need  hardly  remind  you,  the  state, 
science  and  art,  the  school,  and  all  other  free  human 
institutions,  are  equally  entitled  to  oppose  any  direct 
interference  in  their  affairs  on  the  part  of  the  church. 
They  cannot,  of  course,  escape  from  the  influence  of 
religion ;  and  in  so  far  as  the  church  faithfully 
represents  religion,  they  will  experience  its  moral 
power.  But  let  not  the  church,  while  anxiously 
defending  her  own  interests,  encroach  upon  the  rights 

VOL.  II.  M 


178  SCIENCE  OF  RELIGION. 

of  other  bodies,  or  check  the  aspirations  of  the  human 
mind.  Let  her  beware,  lest  she  make  herself  and  her 
sacred  cause  hated,  of  attempting  to  obscure  the  light, 
to  thwart  progress,  to  rule  where  her  sole  mission  is  to 
serve,  or  to  lay  upon  men  any  other  yoke  than  that  of 
Him  who  invited  the  weary  and  heavy-laden  to  come 
to  him.  Sovereign  in  her  own  domain,  let  her  respect 
every  other  domain  presided  over  by  a  different 
authority. 

What,  then,  is  her  domain  ?  What  is  the  task  im- 
posed upon  her  in  the  present  state  of  religious  evolu- 
tion, and  in  our  modern  society  ?  Here  we  have  a  two- 
fold question,  and  we  must  now  try  to  answer  it. 

Her  domain  is  exclusively  the  religious.  This  sounds 
like  a  truism,  a  truth  of  which  it  is  unnecessary  to 
remind  you.  Yet  few  truths,  while  admitted  in  the 
abstract,  are  so  constantly  denied  in  the  concrete. 
Most  of  the  churches,  and  especially  the  most  power- 
ful, instead  of  confining  themselves  to  their  proper 
religious  province,  have  interfered  and  domineered  in 
almost  every  other  province,  little  to  the  advantage  of 
the  latter,  and  certainly  to  their  own  disadvantage. 
This  was,  perhaps,  unavoidable  in  certain  periods  of 
history,  and  was  then,  perhaps,  a  necessary  evil.  At 
the  present  day,  however,  such  interference  has  become 
unnecessary,  and  indeed  impossible.  Peoples  and 
sovereigns,  philosophers   and  investigators,  poets   and 


THE  CHURCH.  179 

artists,  and  in  short  all  civilised  and  enlightened 
persons,  have  now  outgrown  the  old  ecclesiastical 
tutelage.  We  shall  certainly  never  return  to  Canossa. 
We  no  longer  mutter  the  famous  E^ypurc  si  micove  of 
Galileo  with  bated  breath,  but  we  proclaim  our  con- 
victions on  the  housetops,  and  it  requires  no  courage  to 
do  so  nowadays.  We  no  longer  bring  the  result  of  our 
researches  with  fear  and  trembling  to  the  touchstone  of 
church  doctrine,  ready  to  fling  them  to  the  winds  if 
they  fail  to  stand  the  test.  This  is  fortunate  for 
society,  and  it  is  fortunate  for  the  church  also.  She 
can  now  be  truly  herself.  She  can  give  her  undivided 
attention  to  her  own  mission,  hitherto  so  often  neglected 
for  side-issues.  She  can  now  awaken  the  poor  children 
of  men,  in  their  struggle  for  existence  and  their  earnest 
quest  for  light,  to  a  consciousness  of  their  true  destiny, 
of  their  kinship  with  God,  and  of  the  infinite  within 
them.  She  can  comfort  the  mourners,  seek  the  lost, 
raise  up  them  that  fall,  support  the  weak,  and  humble 
the  proud.  And  by  her  preaching,  symbols,  and  elevat- 
ing ritual,  and  by  the  example  of  her  ministers,  she  can 
ennoble  men's  hearts,  and  constrain  them  to  look  for- 
ward longingly  to  a  salvation  that  passes  not  away,  and 
to  a  peace  that  nothing  can  destroy.  "  A  sower  went 
forth  to  sow."  What  a  beautiful  emblem  of  the 
church's  mission !  For  that  is  her  mission,  and  that 
alone.     She   must   preach,   prophesy,    and   testify,   by 


180  SCIENCE  OF  RELIGION. 

word  and  symbol,  of  all  that  is  highest  in  man,  and 
against  all  that  tends  to  his  ruin.  She  must  never 
forget  that  she  is  a  purely  spiritual  institution,  which 
can  only  attain  its  lofty  aims  by  spiritual  means.  Let 
her  beware  of  attempting,  for  the  sake  of  fleeting 
popularity,  or  with  a  view  to  extend  her  external 
supremacy,  to  deprive  rulers  or  statesmen,  politicians 
or  men  of  affairs,  of  any  of  those  tasks  for  which  they 
alone  are  qualified.  Let  her  also  beware  of  invoking 
the  aid  of  state  and  police  for  the  forcible  accomplish- 
ment of  objects  which  she  ought  to  compass  solely 
by  peaceful  argument.  Above  all,  the  church  should 
be  the  last  to  doubt  the  power  of  the  spirit,  which 
surpasses  that  of  all  commandments  and  prohibi- 
tions, and  which  will  at  last  be  all-pervading,  all- 
hallowing. 

Such,  then,  are  the  church's  peculiar  functions, 
which  neither  pedagogue,  nor  moralist,  nor  benevolent 
society,  however  excellent,  can  possibly  discharge. 
The  churches  alone  stand  for  all  that  is  purest  and 
best  in  human  nature,  and  they  will,  therefore,  be 
necessary  as  long  as  the  need  of  religion  and  of 
religious  development  is  felt — as  long,  that  is  to  say, 
as  human  beings  continue  human.  And  if  they 
remain  true  to  their  vocation — each  in  its  own  way 
and  according  to  its  lights — they  will  cease  to  be 
feared  and  hated  as    rivals  of   other  powers,  and  as 


THE   CHURCH.  181 

standing  menaces  to  the  independence  of  individuals 
and  of  society  generally.  They  will  be  prized  and 
esteemed,  and  their  co  -  operation  will  often  be 
invoked.  They  will  then  truly  deserve  a  name 
which  has  hitherto  been  applicable  to  few  of  them 
— the  name  of  a  Mother  who  lovingly  gathers  her 
children  around  her,  and  is  a  blessing  to  all. 


182 


LECTURE    VIII. 

INQUIRY   INTO   THE   BEING  OR   ESSENCE   OF   RELIGION. 

Professor  Siebeck,  in  his  thoughtful  manual  of  the 
philosophy  of  religion,^ — a  most  instructive  work,  even 
for  those  who  cannot  follow  his  method  or  always  con- 
cur in  his  conclusions, — disputes  the  accuracy  of  the 
common  antithesis  of  husk  and  kernel  as  applied  to 
the  external  and  the  internal  elements  of  religion  re- 
spectively, particularly,  because  it  implies  that  we 
have  only  to  strip  off  the  husk  in  order  to  get  posses- 
sion of  the  kernel.  In  other  words,  the  doctrine,  with 
the  scriptures  in  which  it  is  expounded,  and  divine 
worship  are  mere  externals  or  husks,  which  are  matters 
of  minor  importance,  whilst  the  spirit  or  kernel  is  the 
essential  thing.  This  view,  as  he  contends,  leads  to 
error,  and  is  contradicted  by  history.  The  true  rela- 
tion between  the  two  may,  as  he  admits,  be  destroyed ; 
words  and  forms  may  lose  their  life,  in  which  case 
religion  becomes    fossilised.      And   so,    too,   externals. 

^  Lehrbuch  der  Religionsphilosophie,  p.  263. 


BEING  OR  ESSENCE   OF  RELIGION.  183 

may  grow  so  rankly  as  to  choke  the  internal  vitality. 
But  this  just  seems  to  him  to  prove  that  the  internal 
and  the  external,  the  abstract  and  the  concrete,  in 
religion  are  inseparably  united.  Or,  as  it  may  perhaps 
be  better  expressed,  religion  has  a  subjective  and  an 
objective  side — namely,  religiosity  and  religion — and  it 
is  only  in  the  constant  action  and  reaction  of  these 
two  elements  upon  each  other  that  the  true  nature  of 
religion  is  fully  revealed.  And  the  same  process,  as 
Professor  Siebeck  points  out,  is  observable  in  other 
departments  of  culture,  particularly  in  that  of  art. 

These  observations  are  well  founded,  and  they  coin- 
cide with  what  we  have  learned  from  our  preceding 
inquiry.  The  opinion  combated  by  Siebeck,  and  one 
which  is  still  generally  entertained,  is  a  survival  of 
the  old  superficial  rationalism,  as  well  as  of  the  no 
less  superficial  idealism,  which  failed  to  take  account 
of  history.  We  have  seen  that  religious  man  has  ever 
clothed  his  emotions,  his  thoughts,  and  his  sentiments 
in  conceptions  and  ideas,  and  has  ever  expressed  them 
in  observances  and  ceremonies.  Out  of  the  former 
grows  a  religious  doctrine  which,  as  civilisation  ad- 
vances, is  committed  to  writing  in  the  shape  of  sacred 
documents  and  creeds,  while  the  latter  gradually 
assume  the  form  of  organised  worship.  And  for  the 
maintenance  of  that  doctrine  and  the  practice  of  that 
worship,  he  allies  himself  with  kindred  spirits  in  com- 
munities of  greater  or  less  extent.     Consciously  or  un- 


184  SCIENCE  OF  RELIGION. 

consciously,  he  feels  constrained  to  act  thus ;  and  if 
he  did  not,  the  emotions  would  pass  away,  the  im- 
pressions would  lack  stability,  the  sentiments  would 
prove  to  be  but  vague  ebullitions,  and  his  thoughts 
would  fail  to  attain  perfect  clearness  even  in  his  own 
mind.  This  is  therefore  a  phenomenon  which  must 
needs  constantly  recur. 

Or,  to  adhere  to  the  figurative  language  used  by 
Siebeck  himself,  who  can  deny  that  the  husk  is  just 
as  necessary  for  the  preservation  of  the  fruit  as  the 
kernel  is  necessary  in  order  to  give  the  husk  its  value  ? 
Without  the  husk  the  kernel  would  be  lost.  If,  for 
example,  we  rejoice  in  the  blessings  of  that  new  re- 
ligious life  which  dawned  in  Galilee,  we  must  not 
overlook  the  fact  that  we  owe  these  blessings  to  the  for- 
mation of  a  community  which  carefully  collected  and 
preserved  the  earliest  documents  of  the  Gospel,  and 
thus  handed  down  to  posterity  the  memory  of  the 
fervour  and  enthusiasm  of  that  period ;  that  we  owe 
them  to  the  development  of  the  community  into  a 
church,  so  solidly  founded  and  stoutly  built  as  to  defy 
the  storms  of  the  dark  ages  of  barbarism ;  and  that, 
when  the  church  was  found  no  longer  to  satisfy  the 
religious  needs  of  many,  and  to  be  a  hindrance  rather 
than  a  help  to  the  sustenance  of  their  spiritual  life, 
we  owe  the  same  blessings  to  the  establishment  of 
other  communities,  differing  in  views  and  in  organisa- 
tion, but  all  agreeing  in  the  conviction  that  the  Scrip- 


BEING   OR  ESSENCE   OF  RELIGION.  185 

tiire  is  the  word  of  God — a  conviction  which  led  them 
not  only  to  guard  the  purity  of  its  text  with  anxious 
care,  but  to  bestow  the  utmost  pains  on  its  study  and 
interpretation.  All  these  have  been,  in  their  time, 
necessary  means  for  the  preservation  of  what  would 
otherwise  have  certainly  been  lost — but  only  in  their 
time.  Many  people  nowadays  require  these  means 
no  longer.  The  Eoman  Catholic  Church  still  satisfies 
the  religious  wants  of  millions,  and  possesses  many 
peculiar  merits  which  are  not  to  be  found  elsewhere, 
or  not  at  least  to  the  same  extent.  But  for  these,  she 
could  not  continue  to  exist.  Again,  the  doctrine  of  the 
divine  inspiration  of  the  Scriptures,  in  its  old  mechani- 
cal acceptation,  is  still,  in  the  case  of  many  people,  the 
only  means  of  making  them  appreciate  the  Bible.  But 
there  are  millions  who  have  ceased  to  regard  the  medi- 
aeval church  as  the  guide  of  their  religious  life,  who 
are  nevertheless  religious,  and  to  whom  we  cannot 
deny  the  name  of  Christians.  There  are  many  persons 
also  who  can  no  longer  subscribe  to  the  old-church 
doctrine  of  the  infallibility  of  the  Scriptures,  or  who 
at  least  regard  the  divine  inspiration  of  their  authors 
as  something  totally  different  from  a  mere  literal  or 
mechanical  agency ;  and  yet  there  is  abundant  evi- 
dence to  show  that  such  persons  by  no  means  under- 
rate the  religious  value  of  the  Bible — nay,  that,  when 
released  from  the  tyranny  of  its  letter,  they  are  the 
better  enabled  to  penetrate  into  its  spirit.     In  short, 


186  SCIENCE   OF  RELIGION. 

the  husks  in  which  the  priceless  treasure  has  been 
preserved  throughout  the  ages  have  themselves  been 
indispensable,  but  they  have  had  their  day ;  and  in  the 
fulness  of  time,  just  when  the  spiritual  fruit  they  pro- 
tect begins  to  run  the  risk  of  being  choked  by  them, 
they  require  to  be  removed  and  replaced  by  others. 
The  husk  is  therefore  invaluable,  though  only  for  the 
sake  of  the  kernel.  Our  concern  is  now  with  the 
kernel.  The  kernel  alone  gives  its  value  to  the  fruit, 
and  alone  affords  us  sustenance. 

I  therefore  agree  with  Siebeck  in  holding  that  the  ex- 
ternal manifestations  of  religious  consciousness  are  not 
mere  unimportant  incidents,  and  that  their  study  should 
by  no  means  be  neglected.  Above  all,  I  consider  it 
wrong  to  maintain  that  it  does  not  matter  what  a  man 
believes  and  teaches,  or  how  he  worships,  provided  only 
he  believes  something  and  worships  in  some  fashion 
or  other.  But  while  I  hold  that  the  content  of  the 
doctrine  and  the  forms  of  worship  are  by  no  means 
matters  of  indifference  in  religion,  I  can  no  more  admit 
that  they  pertain  to  the  essence  of  religion  than  I  can 
regard  my  body  as  pertaining  to  the  essence  of  my 
human  nature,  or  suppose  that  the  loss  of  one  of  my 
limbs  or  organs  would  really  impair  my  personality  or 
true  humanity.  It  is  one  of  the  conditions  of  the  life 
of  religion  that  its  internal  elements  should  be  re- 
flected in  its  external,  that  the  subjective  should  con- 
stantly  be   objectivised.     It   is   indeed   of  the  utmost 


BEING   OR  ESSENCE  OF  RELIGION  187 

importance  that  the  outward  form  should  as  faithfully 
as  possible  index  the  inward  essence,  and  that  the 
objective  should  agree  as  far  as  possible  with  the  sub- 
jective— as  far  as  possible,  I  say,  because  there  are 
many  cases  in  which  images  and  symbols  can  only 
approximately  express  the  thought  that  underlies 
them.  Yet,  for  the  very  purpose  of  maintaining  this 
agreement,  they  must  constantly  undergo  change,  be- 
cause the  subjective  or  inward  essence  is  perpetually 
developing. 

What  is  it,  then,  that  we  can  characterise  as  the 
abidincr,  the  unchanoing,  the  essential  element,  as 
distinguished  from  the  ever -varying  phenomena  in 
which  it  is  revealed.  "  The  spirit,"  every  one  will 
of  course  reply,  or,  perhaps,  "  the  idea."  But  I  cannot 
accept  this  answer  without  some  further  definition. 
The  terms  used  in  the  so-called  mental  sciences  are 
apt  to  be  so  uncertain  and  arbitrary  that,  as  we  are 
concerned  with  a  question  of  fundamental  importance, 
we  are  bound  to  determine  the  precise  meaning  we 
assign  to  them.  The  term  "  spirit,"  in  particular,  is 
apt  to  be  the  least  definite  of  all.  When  we  speak  of 
spiritual  kindred  in  the  domain  of  religion,  we  denote 
persons  of  the  same  way  of  thinking,  advocates  of  the 
same  principles ;  yet  we  cannot  deny  that  men  of 
totally  different  views  sometimes  act  more  in  accord- 
ance/ with  the  spirit  of  our  principles  than  others  who 
belong  to  our  own  party.     We  distinguish  between  the 


188  SCIENCE   OF  RELIGION. 

spirit  of  Eome  and  that  of  Dordrecht  or  Geneva, 
between  the  spirit  of  the  apostolic  age  and  that  of 
the  middle  ages ;  and  we  thus  denote  cardinal  differ- 
ences in  principle  and  development  within  the  bosom 
of  one  and  the  same  family  of  religions.  As  a  rule, 
we  here  use  the  word  "  spirit "  to  signify  a  certain 
sentiment  or  frame  of  mind,  but  we  also  include  the 
idea  of  a  direction  both  of  thought  and  life.  The  word 
is,  however,  also  applied  in  a  general  way  to  what  may 
indeed  develop,  yet  remains  essentially  the  same,  and 
retains  the  self  -  same  individuality  throughout  all 
changes.  In  this  sense  it  might  be  here  employed ; 
but,  to  prevent  mistake,  I  prefer  to  use  the  word 
"being" — that  which  is,  as  distinguished  from  that 
which  grows  or  becomes,  the  ovala  as  distinguished 
from  the  ever-changing  fjLop(f>al ;  and  I  have  therefore 
called  this  part  of  our  course  the  ontological,  though  it 
might  perhaps  have  better  been  described  as  the 
physiological.  At  all  ev^ents,  our  science  cannot  rest 
satisfied  until  it  has  extended  its  investigations  to  this 
point.  The  question  as  to  what  is  the  true  being  or 
essence  of  religion  is  a  very  difficult  and  complex  one, 
and  I  cannot  hope  to  offer  an  entirely  satisfactory  or 
final  solution;  but  I  may  at  least  make  a  humble 
attempt.  And,  to  begin  with,  let  me  emphasise  this 
point,  that  we  are  not  now  speaking  of  the  essence  of 
religion  in  the  metaphysical,  but  solely  in  the  psycho- 
logical sense.     To  treat  of  religion  as  something  more 


BEING  OR  ESSENCE  OF  RELIGION.  189 

than  a  mere  psychological  problem  does  not  indeed  lie 
beyond  the  province  of  philosophy  in  the  widest  sense, 
but  it  certainly  lies  beyond  that  of  our  science. 

The  difficulty  of  answering  this  question  is  at  once 
apparent  from  the  fact  that  attempts  have  already 
been  made  to  answer  it  in  a  great  many  different 
ways.  Men  whose  knowledge  of  religious  phenomena, 
of  history,  and  of  psychology  merit  our  admiration, 
and  even  the  profoundest  thinkers,  have  arrived  at 
widely  divergent  conclusions  on  this  subject.  Some 
seek  for  the  essence  of  religion  in  creeds,  and  accord- 
ingly suppose  that  everything  depends  on  their  purity, 
and  therefore  on  their  orthodoxy.  And  when  we 
observe  how  passionately  men  have  wrangled,  and  still 
wrangle,  over  doctrines,  how  they  condemn  persons  who 
differ  from  them  as  infidels,  and  how  they  flatter  them- 
selves that  they  alone  possess  a  monopoly  of  religious 
truth  and  are  God's  elect,  we  see  that  such  views  are 
very  generally  prevalent,  and  that  they  are  perhaps  in 
practical  life  the  commonest  of  all.  Eejecting  such 
views,  others  maintain  that  divine  worship,  the  church, 
and  the  church's  ordinances  together  constitute  the 
essence  of  religion,  and  that  the  only  object  of  dogma 
is  to  rally  the  faithful  to  a  common  standard,  and  to 
facilitate  the  religious  education  of  their  children. 
Now  we  have  repeatedly  stated  that  neither  doctrines 
nor  worship  are  matters  of  indifference,  but  are  rather 
the  necessary  manifestations,  and  in  a  sense  the  true 


190  SCIENCE   OF  RELIGION. 

tests,  of  religious  life.  "VVe  are  convinced  that  religious 
men,  as  thinking  beings,  feel  the  need  of  possessing 
some  conception  of  God  and  the  divine,  whether  de- 
rived from  others  or  thought  out  for  themselves — a 
conception  such  as  to  satisfy  their  thinking  faculty ; 
and  we  are  equally  convinced  that  worship  must  utter 
itself  in  outward  observances,  because  men's  hearts 
impel  them  to  do  so.  Zealous  for  truth,  and  longing 
for  a  sense  of  assurance  and  clearness  of  insight,  they 
naturally  translate  into  outward  acts  those  feelings  of 
which  their  hearts  are  full.  But  how  can  we  discern 
the  essence  of  relicrion  in  what  is  a  mere  index  or  utter- 
ance  of  man's  inmost  soul  ?  (And  let  me  remind  you 
that  even  religious  doctrine  rests  ultimately  on  emo- 
tion.) How  can  we  discern  the  essence  of  religion  in 
ever-varying  conceptions  and  ideas,  which  are  but  an 
imperfect  reflection  of  truths  too  deep  for  utterance  ? 
How  are  we  to  discover  it  in  observances  which,  be- 
cause never  entirely  satisfying  the  craving  of  the 
pious  soul,  are  constantly  being  superseded  by  others  ? 
And,  above  all,  how  can  we  hope  to  discover  it 
in  such  outward  and  imperfect  institutions  as  our 
churches  and  their  ordinances  ?  As  well  might  we 
attempt  to  discover  in  man's  body  the  true  essence  of 
his  humanity. 

In  order,  therefore,  to  determine  the  true  essence  of 
religion,  we  must  mount  from  the  visible  to  the  in- 
visible, from  the  phenomena  of  external  nature  to  the 


BEING   OR  ESSENCE   OF  RELIGION.  191 

source  whence  they  spring.  We  need  not  seek  for 
that  essence,  that  abiding  element,  in  religion  as  an 
anthropological  phenomenon  ;  for,  as  such,  religion  is 
subject  to  continual  changes  ;  but  we  must  seek  for  it 
in  the  religiosity,  or  religious  frame  of  mind,  in  which 
it  has  originated.  Although  in  reality  the  two  things 
are  inseparable,  we  must  try  to  distinguish  between  the 
ever-changing  manifestations  of  religion  and  the  senti- 
ment which  underlies  them. 

And  hence  we  are  concerned  neither  with  doctrine, 
nor  worship,  nor  church,  but  with  that  common  root 
from  which  they  all  spring.  And  what  root  can  this 
be  but  faith  ?  Such  was  the  view  I  formerly  held  in 
common  with  many  others.  And,  indeed,  without 
faith  there  can  be  no  true  and  living  religion.  Excise 
faith  from  doctrine,  and  doctrine  becomes  an  empty 
phrase,  a  lip-service,  the  parrot -like  mumbling  of  a 
catechism,  without  the  slightest  idea  of  its  meaning, 
and,  in  short,  nothing  but  a  wretched  travesty  of  re- 
ligion. Divorce  faith  from  worship,  and  worship  be- 
comes mere  senseless  gesticulation,  mummery  like  that 
of  the  Chaldaean  impostors,  a  contemptible  hypocrisy 
like  that  of  the  Italian  priest  who,  as  the  story  goes, 
upon  the  elevation  of  the  host,  exclaimed,  to  Luther's 
horror,  "  Bread  thou  art  and  bread  shalt  thou  remain ! " 
Sever  faith  from  the  church,  and  the  church  becomes 
an  institution  in  which  love  of  power,  ambition,  and 
covetousness    reign    supreme,   and    which    grievously 


,^,.^y^ 


192  SCIENCE  OF  RELIGION. 

abuses  the  most  sacred  heritage  of  mankind.  Faith  is 
the  life  of  religion.     Eeligion  without  it  is  dead. 

Are  we  then,  it  will  be  asked,  to  seek  for  the  essence 
of  religion  in  faith  ?  And  there  immediately  arises  the 
counter -question,  Does  this  apply  to  religion  alone? 
Surely  it  applies  to  our  whole  spiritual  life.  What  is 
religion  without  faith  ?  Yes — but  what  is  our  moral  life 
without  belief  in  the  reality  of  goodness,  in  its  power, 
and  in  the  possibility  of  its  realisation  and  its  final 
triumph  ?  True  charity  is  said  to  believe  all  things. 
Can  a  man  of  science  advance  a  single  step  in  his 
researches  without  faith  in  the  unity  of  nature,  with- 
out belief  in  the  possibility  of  discovering  its  laws, 
without  belief  in  the  truth  ?  Who  can  be  a  genuine 
artist  without  belief  in  art  and  in  his  own  artistic 
faculty  ?  And,  on  the  other  hand,  does  there  not  even 
exist  a  belief  in  ghosts,  in  evil  spirits,  in  witchcraft 
and  exorcism,  which,  though  we  may  regard  it  as  super- 
stition and  a  mere  caricature  of  religion,  is  nevertheless 
as  deeply  rooted  in  some  minds  as  religious  faith  in 
the  souls  of  the  pious  ?  It  is  thus  obvious  that  we 
cannot  pronounce  faith  to  be  the  specific  characteristic 
of  religion.    Some  other  definition  is  therefore  required. 

Several  different  attempts  have  been  made  to  find 
such  a  definition.  The  essential  element  we  are  in 
search  of  has  been  defined  as  a  belief  in  the  moral 
order  of  the  world,  involving  the  postulation  of  a 
supreme  power  which  institutes  such  order,  and  which 


BEING   OR  ESSENCE   OF  RELIGION.  193 

causes  it  ultimately  to  triumph.  (This  is  the  doctrine 
of  Bunsen,  Eauwenhoff,  and  to  some  extent  that  of 
Kant  also.)  But  this  view  depends  upon  the  hypo- 
thesis that  religion  originates  in  ethics,  and  upon  an 
identification  of  the  moral  with  the  religious  principle, 
a  view  which  we  shall  afterwards  impugn. 

I  should  be  more  inclined  to  agree  with  those  who 
seek  the  source  of  religion  in  our  experience  of  the  fact 
that  in  every  religion,  albeit  in  countless  different  ways, 
a  belief  in  God's  supremacy  over  the  world  and  man- 
kind is  combined  with  a  belief  in  man's  kinship  with 
God.  Here,  therefore,  we  find  a  belief  in  God  as  the 
Infinite,  the  Illimitable,  who  is  the  perfect  substance 
of  all  that  is  highest  in  our  inward  nature,  though  it 
be  but  finite  and  limited,  combined  with  a  belief  in 
ourselves,  as  created  in  God's  image,  for  the  purpose  of 
striving  ceaselessly  to  attain  to  His  perfection.  Or, 
briefly,  we  here  find  a  belief  in  the  essential  unity  of 
what  is  specifically  human  with  what  is  divine,  a 
union  which  embraces  both  the  different  aspects  of 
faith.  Now,  this  faith  is  to  be  met  with  in  religions  on 
the  lowest  and  on  the  highest  plane  of  development. 
Yonder  in  crude  animistic  conceptions,  myths,  and 
symbols,  especially  in  what  is  known  as  Totemism  ; 
here  in  the  philosophical  form  of  dogma.  This  faith 
has  been  embodied  by  the  theology  of  the  Christians 
in  particular,  in  their  dogmas  of  the  Trinity  and  of  the 
divinity  of  Christ,  so  that  both  the  phases  of  our  con- 

VOL.  II.  N 


194  SCIENCE   OF  RELIGION. 

ception  of  faith  are  imited  in  the  Son  of  God.  And  is 
it  not  precisely  this  dogma  (for  it  is  in  truth  but  one) 
which  throughout  the  ages  has  formed  the  mainspring 
of  religion,  and  the  profession  of  which  has  ever  been 
regarded  as  the  cognisance  of  all  true  Christians  ? 
And  hence  we  might  draw  the  conclusion  that  belief 
in  the  spiritual  unity  of  God  and  man,  combined  with 
the  fullest  recognition  of  God's  superiority  to  man — 
belief  in  the  Infinite  above  us  and  the  infinite  within 
us — is  the  kernel  of  all  religion. 

This  proposition  undoubtedly  contains  much  truth. 
It  is  a  hypothesis  ;  and  it  is  justifiable  as  being  founded 
on  the  preceding  genetic-psychological  inquiry.  Yet 
this  solution,  which  once  satisfied  me,  does  not,  after 
prolonged  study  and  maturer  reflection,  appear  entirely 
adequate.  What  it  lacks  is  the  great  desideratum  of 
unity  of  principle.  And,  besides,  it  is  too  much  of  a 
dogma — nay,  it  is  really  a  compound  of  two  dogmas,  or 
two  distinct  conceptions  welded  into  a  single  doctrine. 

Nearly  the  same  remark  applies  to  Siebeck's  treat- 
ment of  this  question.^  More  Germanico,  he  sums  up 
his  exposition  in  a  single  formula,  which,  for  the  benefit 
of  our  non-German  hearers  and  readers,  we  shall  an- 
alyse a  little.  He  regards  religion  as  a  conviction  that 
God  and  a  super-terrestrial  world  exist,  and  that  re- 
demption is  possible — a  conviction  to  which  heart  and 
mind  alike  contribute,  and  which  is  practically  oper- 

1  Ibid.,  p.  442. 


BEING   OR  ESSENCE  OF  RELIGION.  195 

ative.  And  in  the  determination  of  religious  conscious- 
ness, faith  is  the  essential  psychological  moment.  Faith, 
in  this  highest  sense,  he  describes  as  an  act  performed 
by  the  freewill  of  the  individual.  This  act  consists, 
in  the  first  place,  in  an  affirmative  answer  being  given 
by  the  believer,  with  regard  to  the  idea  of  the  Good,  to 
the  question  whether  the  existence  of  a  highest  good- 
ness and  a  highest  worth  should  be  admitted  or  denied 
— a  question  which,  in  view  of  the  doubts  begotten  by 
experience  and  reflection,  cannot  be  solved  theoretically; 
but  the  act  is,  at  the  same  time,  a  postulation  of  the 
super-terrestrial  personality  of  God  as  the  profoundest 
guarantee  and  the  all-sufficient  foundation  of  the  con- 
tinuous realisation  of  goodness.  And  the  formation 
and  elaboration  of  this  conception  spring  essentially 
from  the  fact  that  the  human  personality,  whatever 
essential  and  worthy  elements  it  possesses  in  its  own 
general  nature,  cannot  fail  to  use  them  as  keys  or 
handles  to  the  possibility  of  discerning  the  transcen- 
dental orisfin  of  the  world.  It  seems  to  me,  with  all 
due  appreciation  of  the  truths  thus  enunciated,  that  the 
above  statement  amounts  to  little  more  than  a  dogmatism 
compressed  into  a  formula,  a  sort  of  extractum  theologiae 
dogmaticae  triplex  I  Faith  is  indeed  a  free  act  of  each 
human  personality ;  and  the  statement  is  creditable  to 
the  discernment  of  the  German  philosopher.  Yet  I 
cannot  acquiesce  in  holding  that  faith  in  a  super- 
terrestrial  deity,  as  being  the  foundation  and  guarantee 


196  SCIENCE   OF  RELIGION. 

of  the  realisation  of  goodness,  is  to  be  regarded  as  the 
abiding  characteristic  of  all  religion.  At  all  events, 
this  is  just  another  conception  (a  term  which  the  author 
himself  uses),  and  a  very  complex  conception  too.  But 
a  conception,  even  when  a  central  one,  from  which  all 
others  diverge,  and  to  which  all  others  again  converge, 
can  never  be  the  essence  or  kernel  of  religion.  It  may 
form  the  root-idea  of  a  philosophical  system,  or  of  a 
philosophical  religious  doctrine  ;  but  doctrine,  though 
a  fruit  of  religion,  is  not  religion  itself.  I  also  greatly 
doubt  whether  Siebeck's  formula  could  be  applied  to 
religions  in  their  earliest  stages  of  development. 

We  must  therefore  try  to  find  some  other  method  of 
solving  the  problem.  It  is  needless  to  search  for  the 
essence  of  religion  in  any  outward  phenomenon,  either 
in  doctrine,  or  in  worship,  or  in  church,  or  even  in 
faith,  which  may  doubtless  be  regarded  as  the  source 
of  one  of  its  elements — that  of  religious  thought.  It 
must  be  sought  for  in  a  certain  sentiment  or  disposition 
— in  religiosity.  Eeligion  is  essentially  a  frame  of 
mind  in  which  all  its  various  elements  have  their 
source.  Eeligion  is  piety,  manifesting  itself  in  word 
and  deed,  in  conceptions  and  observances,  in  doctrine 
and  in  life.  I  once  met  an  aged  Roman  Catholic  priest 
who  complained  that  his  infirmities  confined  him  to  the 
house  during  the  cold  winter  weather.  "  But  how,"  I 
asked,  "  could  he  perform  the  service  in  his  cold  and 
draughty  parish  church  ? "     "  Oh,  that  is  devotion,"  was 


BEING  OR  ESSENCE  OF  RELIGION.  197 

the  reply.  I  loved  and  revered  the  old  man  for  these 
simple  words.  For  here,  I  said  to  myself,  is  a  truly 
pious  man,  although  our  austere  Calvinistic  fathers 
would  have  branded  him  as  an  idolatrous  votary  of  the 
Popish  Mass.  True  to  his  sacerdotal  vows,  he  felt 
bound  to  offer  up  the  sacrifice  which  he  deemed  the 
holiest  rite  of  his  religion.  Whether  this  might  hasten 
his  end  he  did  not  stop  to  consider — God  knew.  Surely 
this  was  religion,  this  was  piety  and  devotion. 

Now,  I  do  not  claim  to  have  been  the  first  to  seek 
this  method  of  solution.  That  religion  is  really  piety 
is  no  new  discovery.  Others  have  already  expressed 
their  conviction  of  its  truth.  But  most  people  stop 
here,  as  if  this  statement  were  sufficient  to  solve  the 
whole  problem,  whereas  in  reality  it  is  only  the  first 
step  towards  the  solution.  Tor,  unless  we  would  rest 
satisfied  with  using  one  term  in  place  of  another,  we 
must  further  determine  what  piety  really  means.  We 
need  not  trouble  ourselves  much  about  etymologies  ; 
for  we  must  bear  in  mind  that  the  German  fromm,  the 
Dutch  vroom,  and  the  Latin  ^:)ii<s  are  no  longer  used  in 
their  original  senses,  but  now  possess  a  different  and 
deeper  significance.  Fromm  or  vroom  originally  meant 
what  is  "  useful,  profitable,  or  salutary,"  and  pins  meant 
"  dutiful  or  loyal."  We  have  ceased  to  use  the  word 
"pious"  in  any  of  these  senses.  Piety  is  now  practically 
synonymous  with  "  devotion,  or  consecration,"  because 
it   involves   the  idea  of  self  -  dedication   and  personal 


198  SCIENCE   OF  RELIGION. 

sacrifice,  which  is  one  of  the  root -ideas  of  religion. 
But  this  is  only  one  of  these  ideas.  Piety  involves 
more.  The  fact  that  the  term  is  often  used  in  a  con- 
temptuous or  ironical  sense  need  no  more  disturb  us 
than  the  fact  that  its  Teutonic  equivalent  originally 
implied  a  tinge  of  selfishness,  while  the  Latin  word 
might  denote  mere  formalism.  And  therefore,  when 
we  say  that  religion  is  piety,  we  need  hardly  apprehend 
any  risk  of  misunderstanding ;  we  mean,  as  every  one 
knows,  that  religion  is,  in  truth,  that  pure  and  rev- 
erential disposition  or  frame  of  mind  which  we  call 
piety. 

Now,  wherever  I  discover  piety,  as  manifested  in 
different  stages  of  religious  progress,  and  particularly 
as  exhibited  in  full  beauty  in  the  highest  stage  as  yet 
attained,  I  maintain  that  its  essence,  and  therefore  the 
essence  of  religion  itself,  is  adoration.  In  adoration 
are  united  those  two  phases  of  religion  which  are 
termed  by  the  schools  "transcendent"  and  "imman- 
ent" respectively,  or  which,  in  religious  language,  re- 
present the  believer  as  "looking  up  to  God  as  the 
Most  High,"  and  as  "  feeling  himself  akin  to  God  as 
his  Father."  For  adoration  necessarily  involves  the 
elements  of  holy  awe,  humble  reverence,  grateful  ac- 
knowledgment of  every  token  of  love,  hopeful  con- 
fidence, lowly  self-abasement,  a  deep  sense  of  one's  own 
unworthiness  and  shortcomings,  total  self-abnegation, 
and  unconditional  consecration  of  one's  whole  life  and 


BEING   OR  ESSENCE   OF  RELIGION.  199 

one's  whole  faculties.  To  adore  is  to  love  "  with  all 
one's  heart  and  soul  and  mind  and  strength."  To  adore 
is  to  give  oneself,  with  all  that  one  has  and  holds 
dearest.  But  at  the  same  time — and  herein  consists  its 
other  phase — adoration  includes  a  desire  to  possess  the 
adored  object,  to  call  it  entirely  one's  own,  and  con- 
versely a  longing  on  the  part  of  the  adorer  to  feel  that 
he  belongs  to  the  adored  one  for  ever,  in  joy  and  in 
sorrow,  in  life  and  in  death.  He  gives  himself,  in  order 
to  attain  perfect  union  with  the  object  of  his  adoration. 
He  cannot  feel  happy  except  in  the  presence  of  that 
object.  Although  it  is  only  in  the  lower  stages  of 
religious  evolution  that  we  find  the  worshipper  placing 
himself  wholly  at  the  disposal  of  his  god,  in  order,  con- 
versely, to  gain  control  over  that  god ;  and  although  he 
displays  the  same  selfish  desire  to  secure  a  monopoly  of 
the  divine  favour,  and  the  same  ignoble  emulation,  as 
characterise  earthly  relations  (a  selfishness  which  is 
speedily  dispelled  by  clearer  moral  insight  and  purer 
moral  sentiment)  —  yet  no  pious  man  will  ever  rest 
satisfied  until  he  can  exclaim  out  of  the  fulness  of  his 
heart,  ''3fy  Lord  and  mi/  God!"  Adoration  therefore 
demands  that  closest  communion,  that  perfect  union, 
which  forms  the  characteristic  aim  of  all  religion,  and 
to  which  all  true  believers  earnestly  aspire. 

And,  further,  the  spirit  of  adoration  affords  a  key  to 
all  the  various  manifestations  of  religion.  Who  can 
adore  without  being  so  filled  with  the  adored  object 


200  SCIENCE  OF  RELIGION. 

that  it  constantly  occupies  his  thoughts,  and  that,  albeit 
the  object  is  the  Infinite  and  Invisible,  he  cannot  re- 
frain from  forming  a  conception  of  it,  an  image  to 
delight  his  eyes  and  his  heart  ?  Who  does  not  strive 
to  know  the  adored  one  better,  so  far  as  it  is  possible 
for  poor  finite  man  to  know  him  ?  Who  can  adore, 
without  his  whole  life  being  dominated  by  the  adored 
object,  without  strenuously  clinging  to  it,  without  being 
inspired  by  it,  without  longing  to  give  vent  to  his  feel- 
ings in  enthusiastic  songs  and  in  acts  of  reverential 
love  ?  Thus  inspired,  he  rejoices  to  find  kindred  spirits 
willing  to  enter  into  a  sacred  league  with  him,  and, 
when  he  meets  with  persons  whose  spiritual  life  still 
slumbers,  he  delights  to  awaken  it,  to  convince  them  by 
word  and  example,  and  with  his  enthusiasm  to  kindle 
in  their  bosoms  that  sacred  fire  which  burns  so  brightly 
within  his  own.  Faith,  in  all  its  various  manifestations, 
worship  in  all  its  forms,  every  church  and  sect ;  all  the 
manifold  phases  of  religious  life,  the  longing  of  believers 
to  seek  communion  with  their  God  in  solitude,  their 
impulse  to  go  forth  into  the  world  in  order  to  confess 
Him  in  public  and  show  forth  His  marvellous  works ; 
the  depths  of  their  self-abasement  in  presence  of  the 
Most  High,  their  trembling  approach  to  His  footstool, 
or  their  proudest  triumph  over  the  earthly  and  the 
transitory;  the  humble  prayer,  "God,  be  merciful  to 
me,  a  sinner";  the  sufferer's  piteous  lament,  "Eli,  Eli, 
lama   sabachtani " ;  the   cry  of  anguish,  "  Out  of  the 


BEING  OR  ESSENCE   OF  RELIGION.  201 

depths  I  call  unto  Thee,  0  God,"  as  well  as  the  exult- 
ant, "Nothing  shall  separate  me  from  God," — all,  all 
this  lies  enshrined  in  adoration. 

Two  further  questions  that  arise  here  must  not  re- 
main unanswered.  The  first  is,  "Does  all  this  apply 
exclusively  to  religion  ?  Can  we  call  adoration  its 
essence  when  it  is  the  essence  of  idolatry  also  ?  We 
might  reply  that  adoration  may  take  a  false  course,  and 
be  directed  towards  unworthy  objects,  just  as  we  may 
throw  away  our  charity  upon  persons  undeserving  of  it, 
without  thereby  impugning  the  truth  that  love  is  the 
fundamental  law  of  our  moral  life.  But  we  must  go  a 
little  deeper  into  the  matter. 

We  use  the  term  adoration  even  in  our  intercourse 
with  our  fellow-men.  The  passionate  love  of  the  youth 
for  the  bride  of  his  choice,  the  unbounded  admiration 
of  children  for  a  distinguished  father,  the  wife's  fervent 
reverence  for  her  husband's  talents,  so  well  expressed 
by  the  poet  Chamisso  in  words  which  I  may  paraphrase 
thus : — 

"To  serve  him,  live  for,  and  belong  to  him 
Be  my  whole  aim, 
And  give  myself,  and  thus  exalted  be 
By  his  proud  fame." 

All  this,  though  rare  in  these  days  of  male  precocity 
and  female  emancipation,  and  though  we  may  smile  at 
it  as  sentimental  nonsense,  is  comprised  in  the  word 
adoration.     And  although  such  adoration  may  be  less 


202  SCIENCE   OF  RELIGION. 

intense  and  overmastering  than  religious  adoration,  it 
has  a  great  many  features  in  common  with  it,  and  is  of 
the  self-same  nature.  To  the  same  category  belongs 
also  the  worship  of  genius,  hero-worship,  which  has 
been  recommended  by  David  Friedrich  Strauss  as  a 
substitute  for  religion,  and  has  been  so  eloquently  ex- 
tolled by  Carlyle.  Such,  too,  is  the  veneration  of  the 
saints,  although,  in  theory,  the  Church  carefully  distin- 
guishes between  the  veneration  of  saints  and  the  worship 
of  God.  The  difference,  however,  is  in  degree  only,  and 
not  in  kind.  But  is  it  not  a  kind  of  idolatry  to  offer  to 
weak  and  sinful  creatures  the  homage  we  owe  to  the 
Creator  alone  ? 

Surely  such  veneration  of  saints  and  heroes,  and  such 
fondly  cherished  memories,  can  never  serve  as  a  substi- 
tute for  religion.  To  devote  the  highest  love  to  what  is 
only  limited  and  finite  is  irreligious.  But  veneration 
does  not  necessarily  or  always  imply  such  a  maximum 
of  love.  And  after  all  it  is  not  the  actual,  imperfect, 
and  finite  men,  as  such,  that  are  revered,  but  rather  a 
creation  of  the  imagination,  an  ideal  objecti vised  in 
this  or  that  personage,  whether  historical  or  legendary, 
or  of  our  own  acquaintance.  Are  we  angry,  or  do  we 
smile  benevolently,  when  we  hear  fond  relations  singing 
the  praises  of  a  father,  a  son,  or  a  husband,  and  basking 
in  the  sunshine  of  their  fame,  in  which  they  fail  to  see 
the  blemishes  detected  by  your  sober  and  critical  eye  ? 
For  my  part,  1  would  rather  see  a  little  enthusiasm. 


BEING  OR  ESSENCE   OF  RELIGION.  203 

warmth  of  feeling,  and  affection,  whatever  the  object  of 
it  may  be,  than  an  entire  want  of  generous  admiration. 
And  what  is  more,  those  minds  which  are  susceptible 
of  such  impressions  are  likely  to  be  much  more  alive  to 
religious  emotions  than  those  cold  natures  which  scoff 
at  what  they  consider  silly  fanaticism. 

Nay,  I  venture  to  go  a  step  further.  What  is  idol- 
atry ?  I  do  not  now  use  the  word  in  its  figurative 
sense,  as  applied,  for  example,  to  such  idols  as  money 
or  honour,  art  or  science :  the  pursuit  of  such  objects 
has  really  nothing  in  common  with  religious  idolatry. 
I  am  only  now  using  the  word  idolatry  in  its  proper 
and  original  sense.  And  I  would  define  it  as  religion 
under  the  influence  of  intellectual  aberration.  To  some 
extent  it  is  an  entirely  subjective  idea.  To  you  and  to 
me  an  idol  appears  to  be  a  different  conception  of  the 
Deity  from  our  own,  and  I  may  surely  say  a  lower 
conception.  The  Hapi-bull  of  Memphis  is  an  idol  from 
our  point  of  view,  but  the  Egyptian  mysticism  regarded 
it  as  a  symbol  and  pledge  of  the  ever-reviving  Ptah, 
the  God  of  nature's  undying  power  of  reproduction. 
In  the  eyes  of  the  great  Swiss  Reformers  the  adoration 
of  the  Virgin  was  a  profane  deification  of  the  creature, 
whilst,  in  tlie  view  of  the  devout  Catholic,  Mary  pre- 
sented a  marvellous  combination  of  pure  maidenhood 
and  of  suffering  maternal  love.  St  Paul  regarded 
Diana  of  the  Ephesians  as  an  abominable  idol,  and 
rightly  so,  from  his  religious  point  of  view ;   but,  al- 


204  SCIENCE  OF  RELIGION. 

though  Demetrius  and  his  fellows  championed  her  wor- 
ship solely  from  interested  motives,  there  must  have 
been  many  pious  persons  who  honestly  believed  in  her 
divinity,  and  feared  lest  disloyalty  to  the  sacred  tradi- 
tions of  their  fathers  would  bring  ruin  upon  their  city. 
In  the  opinion  of  our  Calvinist  forefathers,  intellectual- 
ists  as  they  were,  the  Popish  Mass,  as  already  observed, 
was  hateful  idolatry,  while  the  Catholics  regard  it  as 
the  daily  renewal  of  the  great  sacrifice  of  the  Son  of 
God.  I  venture  to  say  that  in  all  this  there  is  religion, 
although  on  a  lower  plane  of  development,  and  that 
this  religion  only  becomes  idolatry  when  the  concep- 
tion of  the  deity  upon  which  it  rests  ceases  to  satisfy 
our  moral  sentiment  or  our  religious  needs,  and  when 
we  have  advanced  so  far  in  religious  evolution  as 
to  perceive  that  the  adored  object  has  ceased  to  be 
adorable. 

Here  again  arises  a  second  question.  If  adoration  is 
the  essence  of  religion,  may  we  then  regard  the  lower 
nature -religions  as  manifestations  of  that  essence? 
Now  it  is  true  that  religion  only  displays  the  full 
beauty  of  its  essence  when  it  has  reached  a  maturer 
stage.  Yet  the  attentive  observer  who  takes  account 
of  even  the  most  transitory  forms,  and  who  does  not 
scorn  even  the  rudest,  will  feel  convinced  that  these 
primitive  and  barbarous  religions  likewise  contain  the 
germ  of  that  essence  which  has  since  gradually  de- 
veloped  and  borne   such  glorious  fruit.     In   the   un- 


BEING   OR  ESSENCE   OF  RELIGION.  205 

civilised  man  this  vital  principle  naturally  takes  the 
form  of  trembling  awe,  of  a  shrinking  dread  of  the 
mysterious  powers,  and  perhaps  of  hopeful  reliance, 
while  sometimes  it  shows  itself  in  the  opposite  extreme 
of  undue  familiarity.  With  his  adoration  he  mingles  a 
large  measure  of  selfishness.  His  chief  aim  is  to  secure 
the  favour  of  the  gods  for  himself,  and  he  is  jealous 
when  others  get  a  share  of  it.  He  carefully  excludes 
strangers  from  the  worship  of  his  domestic,  or  tribal, 
or  national  gods ;  they  belong  to  him  alone,  and  he 
vindicates  their  honour  and  their  jurisdiction  as  against 
all  foreign  deities.  While  he  acknowledges  a  number 
of  different  gods,  and  scrupulously  gives  to  each  his 
due,  he  generally  has  one  special  god  of  his  own,  whom 
he  reveres  above  all  others.  In  order  to  prevent  his 
god  from  forsaking  him  or  withdrawing  his  favour, 
he  builds  him  a  sumptuous  dwelling,  and  embellishes  it 
with  the  richest  decorations  that  his  barbarous  taste 
can  suggest.  He  honours  him  with  costly  banquets, 
and  offers  him  the  most  precious  objects  he  possesses. 
Nay,  in  order  to  prevent  the  god  from  escaping  or 
being  stolen,  he  even  binds  him  with  chains — a  bar- 
barous custom  of  which  the  chaining  of  Ares,  the  god 
of  war,  at  Sparta,  and  the  clipping  of  the  wings  of 
Nike,  the  Athenian  goddess  of  victory,  were  curious 
survivals.  All  that  pertains  to  his  god,  everything  in 
which  he  believes  his  spirit  to  reside,  he  regards  as 
precious  and  sacred  (just  as  civilised  men  cherish  the 


206  SCIENCE   OF  RELIGION. 

memorials  of  their  departed  friends,  or  as  the  devout 
Catholic  prizes  the  relics  of  his  saints  or  the  fragments 
of  the  cross),  and  he  loves  to  carry  such  mementoes 
about  with  him  wherever  he  goes.  For  he,  too,  regards 
his  god  as  the  highest  being  he  can  imagine,  as  his 
ideal  of  perfection,  as  the  Lord  and  Master  to  whom 
he  and  all  his  possessions  belong,  whom  he  loves  above 
all  things,  although  awe -stricken  by  His  mysterious 
power,  and  who  fills  all  his  thoughts,  rules  all  his 
actions,  and  dominates  his  whole  life. 

Through  all  these  stages  religion  had  to  pass  before 
it  assumed  the  form  in  which  we  now  know  it.  Yet  its 
vital  principle  has  ever  been  adoration.  Can  we  wonder 
that  its  heart  beats  more  feebly,  and  that  its  enthusi- 
asm cools,  in  times  when  many  of  the  enlightened 
leaders  of  men  deny  the  existence  of  anything  higher 
than  what  is  visible  and  tangible,  when  the  multitude 
desire  nothing  better  than  ^:?r(?ie??i  et  circenses,  food  and 
amusement  ?  And  is  not  our  time  characterised  by  a 
want  of  reverence  for  all  that  the  fathers  prized,  and  by 
a  tendency  to  depreciate  and  trample  under  foot  every- 
thing that  rises  above  mediocrity  ?  Is  it  not  an  age  of 
positivism,  of  levelling  down,  of  ochlocracy,  and  of  quite 
a  passion  for  hard  facts  ?  These  are  things  we  cannot 
help  observing ;  but,  if  we  are  right  in  regarding  them 
as  signs  of  the  times,  we  may  take  comfort  in  the 
thought  that  such  periods  pass  away,  as  they  have  done 
more  than  once  in  bygone  ages.     A  time  always  comes 


BEING   OR  ESSENCE   OF  RELIGION.  207 

when  the  dehided  ones  see  the  error  of  their  ways, 
when  they  humbly  confess  that  man  cannot  live  by 
bread  alone,  when  their  souls  thirst  for  the  living  God, 
as  the  hunted  stag  panteth  for  the  water-brooks— a 
time  when  poor  human  hearts  go  forth  in  love  towards 
the  One  whom  alone  they  can  truly  adore. 


208 


LECTURE    IX. 

INQUIRY  INTO   THE  ORIGIN    OF  RELIGION. 

We  are  confronted  to-day  with  a  difficult  problem — 
What  is  the  origin  of  religion  ?  In  the  opinion  of 
many,  it  is  futile  to  attempt  to  solve  it ;  yet  I  think  we 
are  bound  to  face  the  question.  The  reluctance  of 
those  who  decline  to  consider  it  often  arises  from 
positivist  leanings,  oftener  perhaps  from  indolence. 
Persons  of  the  former  class  hesitate  to  take  a  single 
step  beyond  the  domain  of  what  is  directly  perceptible, 
while  those  of  the  latter  think  it  safer  and  more  com- 
fortable to  persuade  themselves  and  others  that  the 
problem  is  insoluble.  But  neither  of  these  grounds 
ought  to  prevent  us  from  at  least  considering  it,  if  our 
science  is  to  continue  worthy  of  its  name. 

Let  us  begin  by  stating  the  question  as  accurately  as 
possible.  For  it  seems  to  me  that  there  is  still  a 
good  deal  of  misunderstanding  about  the  matter.  The 
question  is  not,  Hoiv  did  religion  arise,  or   in   other 


ORIGIN  OF  RELIGION.  209 

words,  what  is  its  origin  in  the  history  of  mankind  ? 
The  question  is,  Whence  does  it  spring,  not  in  one 
instance  but  in  all,  or  what  is  its  source  in  man's 
spiritual  life  ?  These  two  questions  are  doubtless 
inseparable,  and  are  therefore  often  confounded  ;  but 
they  are  by  no  means  identical.  The  first  relates  to 
religion  as  the  aggregate  of  all  those  phenomena  that 
we  call  religious.  It  is  an  historical  question.  For, 
although  we  possess  no  historical  record  of  the  oldest 
forms  of  religion,  either  in  written  documents  or  in 
trustworthy  traditions,  yet  historical  science,  which 
requires  to  invoke  divination  and  intuition  to  create 
a  distinct  picture  of  the  past,  even  when  such  records 
exist,  can  also,  with  their  aid,  give  us  an  approximate 
idea  of  these  forms  as  they  existed  in  prehistoric 
times.  From  what  it  knows  about  historic  religions 
it  endeavours  to  deduce  and  reconstruct  those  of 
primitive  ages.  Convinced  that  the  spiritual  life  of 
man  must  always  have  been  governed  by  the  same 
laws,  and  reasoning  from  the  analogy  of  what  we 
observe  in  children  and  in  uncivilised  peoples,  we  may 
form  a  picture  of  what  religion  was  in  those  days 
when  the  earliest  germs  of  civilisation  began  to  burst 
forth.  Such  a  picture  must  of  course  be  purely 
hypothetical,  but  it  is  of  the  same  nature  as  that  by 
means  of  which  astronomers  try  to  explain  the  origin 
of  the  solar  system,  and  it  is  quite  as  justifiable.  We 
must  not  attach  undue  value  to  it,  but  we  must  admit 
VOL.  II.  0 


210  SCIENCE   OF  RELIGION. 

that  the  historical  inquirer  is  fully  entitled  to  adopt 
this  method  of  forming  his  conclusions. 

Such  an  inquiry  belongs,  however,  to  the  morpho- 
logical part  of  our  science,  while  we  are  at  present 
concerned  with  its  ontological  side.  It  relates  to  the 
beginnings  of  religious  development,  and  we  might 
justifiably  now  pass  it  over  in  silence.  "We  must, 
however,  without  dwelling  too  long  on  the  subject, 
examine  the  chief  answers  that  have  been  given  to 
the  question,  if  only  to  show  that  they  by  no  means 
solve  our  problem,  as  has  often  been  supposed. 

We  shall  have  to  examine  two  different  hypotheses 
as  to  the  beginnings  of  religion  —  a  religious  -  philo- 
sophical, and  an  anti-religious  philosophical.  Let  us 
take  the  first  in  the  form  given  to  it  by  the  German 
philosopher  Fechner.^  According  to  him,  belief  in  God 
rests  upon  divine  revelation,  but  that  revelation  is 
mainly  internal,  being  external  only  in  so  far  as  it 
is  communicated  by  nature's  language  of  signs,  just  as 
the  first  revelation  made  by  parents  to  their  children 
is  communicated  by  means  of  gestures.  Nature,  he 
argues,  is  so  ordered  as  to  make  men  recognise  the 
existence  of  a  power  above  them.  So  long  as  he  was 
unable  to  distinguish  between  body  and  soul,  he  could 
make  no  such  distinction  as  regards  external  nature. 

^  See  the  lucid  exposition  of  Fechner's  Theorj^  in  Pfleiderer's  '  Re- 
ligionsphilosophie,'  2nd  ed.,  ii.  622,  and  in  his  more  recent  '  Geschichte 
der  Religionsphilosophie,'  p.  575  seq. 


ORIGIN  OF  RELIGION.  211 

He  there  saw  powers  greater  than  his  own  at  work, 
such  powers  as  the  sun,  the  heavens,  the  storm,  and 
the  thunder.  With  these  powers  he  put  himself  into 
relation,  just  as  he  would  do  with  human  beings 
higher  than  himself.  And  thus,  at  the  very  fountain- 
head  of  religion,  the  theoretical  and  the  practical 
principle  w^ould  work  together ;  and  in  so  far  as 
nature,  as  well  as  man,  lives  in  God,  and  God  works 
in  both,  so  the  impressions  produced  both  by  nature 
and  man's  practical  needs  would  in  reality  be  only 
the  working  of  God  Himself  upon  the  being  created 
by  Him.  The  origin  of  belief  in  God  was  thus 
the  working  of  original  divine  inspiration  through 
nature  and  the  human  soul. 

Although  this  theory  has  much  to  recommend  it, 
it  is  impossible  to  regard  it  as  an  answer  to  the 
problem  we  are  now  trying  to  solve.  It  still  requires 
to  be  explained — not  how  men  came  to  recognise  the 
existence  of  a  might  superior  to  their  own,  for  even 
animals  are  aware  of  its  existence ;  or  what  made 
them  see  in  external  nature  the  operation  of  higher 
powers,  of  which  animals  too  have  some  glimmering 
apprehension  —  but  what  induced  men  to  put  them- 
selves into  relation  with  these  higher  powers,  as  they 
are  wont  to  do  with  their  superior  fellow  -  men  ? 
Herein  lies  the  specifically  religious  element.  God 
reveals  Himself  to  man  through  nature  and  through 
man's  own   soul  —  yes,  but  what  is  it  that  gives  the 


212  SCIENCE  OF  RELIGION. 

human  soul  the  necessary  receptivity  for  such  divine 
revelation  ?  We  wish,  in  short,  to  ascertain  the 
psychological  foundation  of  religion. 

The  same  remarks  apply  to  the  anti-religious  theory. 
According  to  that  theory,  religion  is  a  consequence  of 
man's  ignorance.  Being  as  yet  unable  to  distinguish 
between  the  subjective  and  the  objective,  he  personifies 
the  impersonal  powers  of  nature,  and  attributes  to  them 
emotions  and  a  will,  analogous  to  those  of  which  he  is 
himself  conscious.  Fear  and  hope — for  he  knows  his  de- 
pendence on  the  powers  of  nature — impel  him  to  pro- 
pitiate these  powers  as  if  they  were  human  princes  and 
potentates,  whose  favour  may  be  gained  by  entreaties 
and  gifts.  Eeligion  thus  took  shape,  and  was  then 
handed  down  from  generation  to  generation.  At  a 
later  period,  when  people  had  outgrown  these  childish 
notions,  they  tried,  in  order  to  adapt  religion  to  the 
demands  of  a  higher  civilisation,  to  clothe  it  in  a 
more  aesthetic,  a  philosophical,  scientific,  or  even  ethical 
garb.  But  people  who  think  that  all  these  conceptions, 
however  modified,  are  always  in  point  of  fact  nothing 
but  freaks  of  imagination,  must  necessarily  discard 
religion  altogether,  and  conclude  that  it  is  incompatible 
with  our  present  knowledge  of  nature. 

Now  this  hypothesis,  even  as  an  attempt  to  account 
for  the  origin  of  religion,  is  open  to  a  good  many 
objections.  But  if  we  assume  for  a  moment  that  it 
fairly  represents  the  way  in  which  the  earliest  form  of 


ORIGIN  OF  RELIGION.  213 

religion  originated,  it  accounts  after  all  for  nothing  but 
the  form ;  it  accounts  for  nothing  but  those  childish 
notions  which  result  from  lack  of  scientific  knowledge 
and  from  general  ignorance — for  religion  itself  it  cannot 
account.  Long  after  men  had  given  up  such  childish 
notions,  long  after  they  had  outgrown  the  mythological 
and  dogmatic  conceptions  which  took  their  place,  re- 
ligion still  survived.  And  when  we  are  told  that  none 
of  the  creations  of  our  imagination,  none  of  our  dreams 
and  subjective  emotions,  have  any  objective  existence, 
we  are  told  nothing  new.  We  have  got  beyond 
Animism,  Therianthropism,  and  Anthropomorphism. 
We  no  longer  think  of  the  Deity  as  a  roving  spirit,  or 
as  an  animal  or  half-animal,  or  even  as  a  perfect  man. 
We  fear  to  make  any  image  of  God,  we  even  deem  it 
profanation.  And  if  we  apply  to  Him  our  conceptions 
of  self-consciousness  and  personality,  we  do  so  with 
much  reservation,  and  hasten  to  make  it  clear  that  we 
do  not  mean  these  terms  to  include  any  idea  of  limita- 
tion. We  use  them  simply  because  they  express  the 
highest  elements  in  our  own  nature,  while  we  quite 
admit  that  God — though  not  indeed  unknown  to  man, 
for  we  know  Him  by  His  works  around  us  and  within 
us — is  the  Ineffable,  the  Illimitable,  the  Inscrutable. 
Yet  even  those  who  recognise  this  truth,  including  not 
a  few  distinguished  men  of  science  and  profound  philo- 
sophic thinkers,  still  cling  to  religion,  and  do  not  feel 
compelled  to  abandon  it.    Eeligion  must  therefore  surely 


214  SCIENCE  OF  RELIGION. 

be  something  more  than  a  mere  confusion  of  subject  and 
object.  Surely  it  cannot  be  founded  on  a  mistake,  on 
an  intellectual  aberration.  Observe,  I  am  not  speaking 
here  as  an  apologist.  I  am  not  pleading  on  behalf  of 
the  truth  of  religion  and  its  right  to  exist.  I  merely 
say  that  so  superficial  an  explanation  as  the  above 
can  never  satisfy  even  the  purely  scientific  and  philo- 
sophical inquirer. 

Whatever,  therefore,  be  our  conception  of  the 
earliest  form  of  religion,  the  anti-religious  hypothesis — 
even  were  it  unalloyed  with  the  ulterior  object  of 
branding  religion  itself  as  a  fruit  of  ignorance — cannot 
help  us  to  find  religion's  actual  source.  Assuming  that 
religion  began  with  Naturism,  the  worship  of  the 
powers  of  nature,  and  of  natural  phenomena,  as  if  they 
were  animate  beings  ;  or  that  it  began  with  Animism, 
in  the  form  we  have  called  Spiritism,  that  is  to  say, 
the  worship  of  spirits  embodied  in  all  kinds  of 
objects,  and  roaming  from  one  to  another  at  will ; 
or  that  it  began  when  men  advanced  from  the  wor- 
ship of  superior  living  men,  such  as  princes,  priests, 
and  prophets,  and  even  of  deceased  relations  and 
ancestors,  to  that  of  superhuman  beings,  who  were 
then  usually  the  personified  powers  of  phenomena 
of  nature  ; — assuming,  further,  that  all  these  super- 
human beings  were  but  creations  of  fancy,  and  that 
all  these  conceptions  are  easily  accounted  for  by 
primitive  man's  untutored  state  of  mind  and  his  in- 


ORIGIN  OF  RELIGION.  215 

experience  of  human  nature  and  the  world;  —  the 
question  still  remains,  What  prompted  him  to  imagine 
such  beings  ?  Imagination  only  creates  images  of 
thoughts  already  present  to  the  mind.  And  although 
these  thoughts  are  always  awakened  b}'-  the  influence 
of  some  external  stimulus,  they  are  only^awakened,  not 
created,  by  such  influence.  Unless  the  stimulus  finds 
something  responsive  within  the  man  himself,  it  yields 
no  fruit.  What  is  this  responsiveness  in  the  case 
of  religion  ?     That  is  our  question. 

We  cannot  enter  upon  a  complete  history  of  this 
question.  The  time  at  our  disposal  will  not  even 
allow  us  to  review  and  criticise  all  the  answers  that 
have  been  given  to  it.  Some  of  these  are  wide  as 
the  poles  apart,  others  present  slight  variations  only. 
As  a  bare  enumeration  of  them  would  be  unprofit- 
able, I  propose  to  reduce  the  various  solutions  to 
some  of  the  main  types  under  which  the  more 
important  may  be  grouped. 

The  first  type  is  that  which  regards  religion  as  the 
result  of  some  process  of  reasoning.  To  this  class 
belongs  the  theory  which  derives  religion  from  what 
has  been  called  the  instinct  of  causality,  and  which 
may  be  stated  thus :  "  Man  is  impelled,  by  virtue  of 
his  innate  mode  of  thinking,  to  seek  for  the  cause  of 
everything  he  perceives.  He  does  not  find  out  the 
natural  causes  of  things  until  a  late  period.  This 
.demands  toilsome  research,  the  results  of  which  can 


216  SCIENCE   OF  RELIGION. 

only  be  accepted  on  the  ground  of  authority  by  the 
less  gifted,  who  are  scarcely  able  even  to  follow  the 
methods  employed.  The  discovery  of  laws  of  nature 
further  requires  profound  study,  while  the  mass  of 
mankind  are  ignorant  of  their  very  existence.  What- 
ever, therefore,  he  cannot  explain  on  natural  grounds 
(which  at  first  means  almost  everything)  the  unso- 
phisticated observer  ascribes  to  invisible,  intangible, 
supernatural,  or  at  least  to  superhuman  causes,  which 
he  necessarily  conceives  as  thinking,  feeling,  and  will- 
ing beings,  and  which  thus  become  his  gods.  The 
further  he  progresses  in  his  knowledge  of  nature,  the 
wider  the  domains  of  science  become,  the  more  the 
chain  of  causes  is  lengthened,  so  much  the  more  the 
supernatural  element  will  be  thrust  into  the  back- 
ground. But  however  well  he  can  now  account,  on 
natural  grounds,  for  what  he  once  attributed  to  direct 
divine  interposition,  there  still  remains  something 
which  baffles  every  attempt  to  explain  it  on  such 
grounds ;  there  still  remains  the  question.  Who  laid 
down  these  laws  of  nature,  who  called  into  being  the 
marvellous  order  of  the  world  ?  There  will  still  remain 
the  ceaseless  search  for  a  highest,  and  at  the  same 
time  final,  cause.  This  gives  rise  to  a  belief  in  God, 
and  of  such  belief  religion  is  the  fruit." 

That  this  peculiarity  of  the  human  mind  contrib- 
utes to  the  genesis  of  religion  I  do  not  dispute ;  and 
still  less  would  I  deny  that  it  is  a  factor  in  the  for- 


ORIGIN  OF  RELIGION.  217 

mation  of  the  conceptions  of  faith.  But  it  is  impos- 
sible to  admit  that  it  is  the  actual  source  of  religion 
itself.  It  may  give  birth  to  philosophy  and  science, 
it  may  form  the  basis  of  a  philosophical  system,  and 
it  may  convey  some  idea  of  the  order  of  the  world 
to  those  who  cannot  study  science  or  philosophy,  but 
it  cannot  produce  religion.  For  religion  is  something 
more  than  a  recognition  of  supernatural  causes  or  of 
a  highest  cause.  The  savage,  for  instance,  does  not 
make  gods  of  all  the  powers  which  he  regards  as  beings 
of  a  higher  order,  and  also  as  conscious  beings.  Some 
of  them  he  recognises,  but  does  not  worship ;  there  are 
not  a  few  whom  he  even  exorcises,  opposes,  or  tries  to 
banish.  It  therefore  still  requires  to  be  explained  how- 
he  comes  to  put  himself  into  relation  with  these  beings, 
to  suppose  that  he  is  somehow  akin  to  them,  and  even 
to  ascribe  to  them  mental  and  moral  qualities  which 
have  no  connection  with  their  functions  as  powers  of 
nature. 

The  above  explanation  having  proved  unsatisfactory, 
other  solutions  have  been  attempted.  Eeligion  arises, 
according  to  Eauwenhoff,  from  the  coincidence  of  man's 
moral  consciousness  with  the  naturalistic  and  animistic 
views  of  the  world.  Man  would  then  arrive  at  religious 
conviction  by  a  process  of  reasoning  like  the  follow- 
ing :  "  I  hear  a  voice  within  me  which  often  bids  me 
to  do  what  conflicts  with  my  wishes  and  inclinations, 
or  forbids  me  to  do  precisely  what  I  most  ardently 


218  SCIENCE   OF  RELIGION. 

desire.  Whether  I  call  that  voice  conscience,  or  an 
unconditional  sense  of  duty,  or  a  categorical  impera- 
tive, it  testifies  of  a  power  above  me,  which  acts  and 
rules  within  me."  This  power,  then,  is  the  God  whom 
he  obeys,  serves,  and  adores.  Even  in  the  lower  strata 
of  religion  men  figure  to  themselves  a  certain  moral 
order  of  the  world,  although  in  a  very  primitive  form, 
and  this  moral  order  must  have  a  director  and  an 
origin.  Such  directors  then  become  his  gods,  whom 
he  identifies  with  the  powers  of  nature  which  inspire 
him  with  hope  and  fear ;  and  thus  he  comes  to  ascribe 
to  them  mental  faculties.  Here,  too,  we  see  the  in- 
stinct of  causality  at  work ;  but  it  is  not  by  its  appli- 
cation to  the  phenomena  of  nature  alone  that  religion 
is  produced.  This  result  is  only  reached  when  that 
instinct  is  also  applied  to  moral  phenomena. 

This  hypothesis  places  me  rather  in  a  dilemma,  as 
I  can  neither  accept  nor  reject  it.  At  a  later  stage 
we  shall  see  that  it  contains  a  germ  of  truth.  At  all 
events,  it  proceeds  upon  a  due  observation  of  the 
facts.  It  is  true  that  the  mental  emotion  commonly 
called  conscience  is  often  objectivised  as  a  warning 
and  reproving  voice  from  a  higher  world,  echoed 
in  man's  inmost  soul.  It  is  not  Christians  only 
who  recognise  it  as  a  divine  voice.  In  all  the  re- 
ligions of  antiquity  we  find  that  the  accusing  voice 
of  an  uneasy  conscience  gives  rise  to  a  dread  of  the 
wrath  of  the  gods,  who  chastise  guilty  man  by  fire 


ORIGIN  OF  RELIGION.  219 

and  sword,  famine  and  pestilence,  or  to  a  fear  of  the 
Erinyes,  or  avenging  Furies,  and  Angels  of  destruc- 
tion. ISTay,  so  closely  has  conscience  always  been 
associated  with  religion  that  we  use  liberty  of  con- 
science and  religious  liberty  as  synonyms.  Nor  can 
it  be  denied  that  man's  moral  consciousness  or  sense 
of  duty,  if  this  term  be  preferred,  is  an  important 
factor  in  the  genesis  and  the  subsequent  development 
of  religion.  And  no  one  will  dispute  that  it  exerts 
a  great  influence  on  the  formation  and  progress  of 
the  conceptions  of  faith.  But  this  is  by  no  means 
tantamount  to  saying  that  it  is  the  origin  of  religion. 
The  chief  difficulty,  however,  consists  in  the  vague- 
ness of  the  ideas  here  dealt  with.  There  is  some 
difference  of  opinion  as  to  the  precise  meaning  of  the 
terms  conscience  and  unconditional  sense  of  duty.  In 
the  Eomanic  languages  "conscience  "  generally  has  more 
meanings  than  one.  What  is  conscience  in  the  religious 
sense  ?  Some  authorities  (like  Schenkel)  not  only  de- 
duce religion  from  it,  but  make  it  the  foundation  of  a 
complete  dogmatic  system  ;  others  (like  Opzoomer  and 
Eauwenhoff)  maintain  that  it  is  entirely  devoid  of 
content,  and  is  purely  of  a  formal  nature.  If  we 
adopt  the  latter  view  of  it,  the  term  "  unconditional 
sense  of  duty  "  would  in  fact  lose  all  moral  significance, 
as  it  might  quite  as  well  lead  us  astray  and  prompt  us 
to  commit  the  most  atrocious  crimes,  as  indicate  the 
right  path  of  purity  and  virtue.     According   to   this 


220  SCIENCE   OF  RELIGION. 

view  it  was  the  dictates  of  conscience  that  alike 
prompted  the  worshippers  of  Moloch  (properly  Melek, 
or  Malik)  to  make  their  children  pass  through  the  fire 
in  the  Valley  of  Gehinnom,  and  impelled  the  prophets 
to  inveigh  against  the  practice  in  the  name  of  Yahve ; 
the  martyrs,  whom  neither  threats,  nor  torture,  nor 
death  could  induce  to  renounce  their  faith,  and  their 
persecutors,  who  threw  them  to  the  lions  or  burned 
them  at  the  stake,  acted  alike  from  conscientious 
motives ;  Creon,  who  refused  to  bury  the  body  of 
Polynices,  as  being  that  of  a  traitor,  and  Antigone, 
who  disregarded  the  royal  command  in  order  to  obey 
the  behests  of  the  gods,  were  equally  conscientious. 
Some  fallacy  must  lurk  here.  Is  it  not  just  as  if 
one  should  refuse  to  distinguish  between  good  coin 
and  base  ?  Or,  to  take  a  more  germane  illustration, 
does  it  not  amount  to  putting  the  wholesome  creations 
of  an  imagination  inspired  by  religious  sentiment  on  a 
level  with  the  distorted  phantoms  that  haunt  the  brain 
of  a  fever-stricken  patient  or  a  madman  ?  It  is  there- 
fore a  sound  moral  instinct  that  prompts  us  to  speak  of 
a  misdirected  or  deadened  conscience.  And  we  should 
do  well  to  consider  carefully  whether  actions  which  are 
apparently  prompted  by  conviction,  or  conscientious 
motives,  do  not  in  reality  emanate  from  a  disordered 
brain,  or  from  a  mind  actuated  by  the  lower  passions. 
It  is  also  worth  noting  that,  while  the  words  conscience 
and  sense  of  duty  are  chiefly  used  in  a  moral  sense, 


ORIGIN  OF  RELIGION.  221 

they  are  employed  with  an  analogous  meaning  in  many 
other  domains,  in  art  and  science,  and  generally  in  what 
may  be  called  the  worship  of  the  beautiful  and  the  true. 
Do  we  not,  for  instance,  often  speak  of  a  conscientious 
work  of  art,  or  of  a  conscientious  scientific  research  ? 
In  short,  the  doctrine  of  conscience  and  sense  of  duty 
urgently  requires  revision;  and  before  we  can  draw 
conclusions  from  it  regarding  the  source  of  religion, 
we  must  have  some  clearer  definition  of  the  emotions 
it  embraces  and  of  their  true  significance. 

It  is  certain,  at  all  events,  that  this  last  theory  is  also 
open  to  the  objection  that  it  makes  religion  the  product 
of  reasoning,  whereas  reasoning  and  reflection  are  always 
of  later  growth.  It  is  undoubtedly  true  that  conscience 
is  generally  understood  to  mean  the  voice  of  some  higher 
being,  like  the  Bac/jLoviov  tl,  or  genius,  in  which  Socrates 
believed;  but  the  question  constantly  recurs,  How  came 
men  to  hear  that  voice  ?  It  may  be  quite  true  that 
religious  persons  explain  these  emotions  by  a  process  of 
reasoning ;  but  they  are  religious  first,  and  they  reason 
afterwards.  What  makes  them  religious  ?  That  is 
what  we  want  to  know. 

If  religion  cannot  be  the  product  of  reasoning,  we 
may  perhaps  try  to  find  its  origin  in  sentiment.  In 
this  direction  also  various  attempts  have  already  been 
made.  It  has  been  thought  sufficient  to  lay  it  down 
that  the  source  of  religion  must  be  sought  for  in  a 
special  religious  sense  or  feeling  —  a  solution  of  the 


222  SCIENCE  OF  RELIGION. 

problem  which  reminds  us  of  a  well-known  saying  of 
Goethe,  that,  where  thoughts  are  lacking^  at  the  ris^ht 
time,  a  word  is  often  aimlessly  uttered.  For  this  is  an 
explanation  that  explains  nothing,  except  that  the  phil- 
osopher who  propounded  it  must  have  been  sadly  at  a 
loss  for  ideas. 

Of  course  there  is  such  a  thincj  as  relio^ious  feelins^ 
just  as  there  are  religious  thought  and  religious  will, 
just  as  there  is  an  artistic  feeling,  a  moral  feeling,  a 
sense  of  truth ;  and  such  religious  feeling  is  a  proof  of 
the  existence  of  religion,  but  it  does  not  advance  us  a 
single  step  in  our  investigation.  Nor  do  we  get  any 
help  from  the  "  unconditional  sense  of  dependence  "  in 
which  Schleiermacher  seeks  for  the  source  of  religion. 
Not,  however,  that  this  explains  nothing,  for  it  certainly 
explains  one  of  the  elements  of  religion ;  but  it  does  not 
account  for  religion  as  a  whole.  We  need  not,  however, 
criticise  this  theory  more  fully,  as  it  has  long  since 
been  rejected  as  inadequate  by  all  competent  authorities. 

But  there  is  another  theory,  the  advocates  of  which 
rightly  keep  in  view  all  the  component  parts  of  religious 
life,  and  which,  if  we  were  to  take  into  account  both 
the  number  and  the  authority  of  the  voices  in  its 
favour,  might  be  regarded  as  conclusively  established. 
For  it  has  met  with  the  approval  of  some  of  the  great- 
est thinkers  of  modern  times,  and  of  men  of  entirely 
different  schools.  A  Hegelian  of  the  extreme  "  left,"  like 
Feuerbach,  one  of  the  "  right,"  like  Lipsius,  and  Eduard 


ORIGIN  OF  RELIGION.  223 

von  Hartmann,  Otto  Pfleiderer  (who,  however,  since 
1878  has  abandoned  it  for  another  theory),  and  at  an 
earlier  period  Zeller  and  Hoekstra,  have  all  accepted 
it,  with  slight  variations,  as  the  best  explanation  of  the 
origin  of  religion.  And  some  twenty  years  ago  I  agreed 
with  them.  Although  I  do  not  now  think  that  it  brings 
us  to  our  goal,  I  am  still  of  opinion  that  it  carries  us 
in  the  right  direction. 

This  theory  is,  that  religion  is  the  result  of  a  conflict 
between  the  sense  of  self  and  the  sense  of  necessity,  or, 
as  it  is  sometimes  put,  that  it  is  produced  by  the  tension 
between  man's  self-consciousness  and  his  consciousness 
of  the  world.  Eauwenhoff,  one  of  its  opponents,  has 
stated  it  with  great  clearness.  The  argument  may  be 
summarised  as  follows :  Man,  placed  in  a  world  where 
he  is  surrounded  by  many  different  powers  which  en- 
danger his  welfare  and  his  very  existence,  but  conscious 
of  his  right  to  exist  in  that  world,  seeks  for  help  and 
support  in  a  power  to  which  the  world  itself  is  subject. 
This  power  he  finds  in  the  beneficent  powers  of  nature, 
to  which  he  owes  his  subsistence  and  salvation,  and 
which  he  therefore  personifies  and  worships.  Or,  as 
it  is  more  simply  expressed  by  Feuerbach,  "  the  funda- 
mental hypothesis  {die  Grundwraussetzimg)  of  belief  in 
God  is  man's  wish  to  be  God  himself.  Man,  how- 
ever, soon  discovers  to  his  sorrow^  that  he  is  not  a  god ; 
and  w^hat  he  wishes  to  be  thus  becomes  merely  a  con- 
ceived, a  believed,  an  ideal  being.     Limited  in  his  facul- 


224  SCIENCE   OF  RELIGION. 

ties,  but  unlimited  in  his  wishes,  man  is  therefore 
un-divine  in  power,  and  un-human  in  volition.  God 
thus  forms  the  other  half  that  man  lacks ;  what  man 
imperfectly  is,  God  is  perfectly ;  what  man  can  only 
desire  to  be,  God  actually  is.  This,  then,  is  the  sub- 
jective side  of  the  process ;  the  objective  side  is 
afforded  by  the  phenomena  of  nature,  by  what  is  ex- 
perienced, by  the  actuality  in  the  world  around  him 
with  which  he  associates  his  ideal  persons."  This,  at 
any  rate,  is  a  fine  piece  of  psychological  analysis,  and 
one  that  we  can  appreciate,  although  we  repudiate 
Feuerbach's  negative  conclusion  that  the  whole  pro- 
cess is  purely  subjective.  He  regards  it  as  a  process 
of  mere  self-delusion,  in  which  there  is  nothing  real 
"except  man's  desire  that  it  should  be  so,"  a  dictum 
which  we  should  expect  from  his  exaggerated  intel- 
lectualism  and  what  has  been  called  his  anthropolo- 
gism,  but  which  falls  entirely  beyond  the  province  of 
scientific  criticism. 

You  will  observe  that  the  instinct  of  causality — that 
necessary  cast  of  human  thought  which  impels  men 
to  seek  for  the  cause  of  everything,  and  which  is  thus 
supposed  to  account  for  the  origin  of  religion — has  been 
adopted  in  this  case  also,  though  only  as  a  subordinate 
part  of  the  more  comprehensive  theory.  For  to  this 
instinct  alone  we  must  attribute  the  hypothesis  that 
men  regard  the  desires  of  their  heart,  transformed  into 
persons  by  their  inventive  imagination,  as  the  causes  of 


ORIGIN  OF  RELIGION.  225 

the  powers  they  see  at  work  in  nature.  I  therefore 
think  that  the  psychological  process  above  mentioned 
might  be  described  somewhat  differently.  The  per- 
sonification of  the  powers  which  primitive  man  sees  at 
work  in  nature  is  not  the  outcome  of  his  religious 
consciousness.  It  is  rather  a  rudimentary  philosophy, 
a  crude  cosmogony.  His  gods  are  originally  and 
essentially  ideal  personages,  some  only  of  whom,  per- 
haps the  majority,  but  certainly  not  all  of  whom,  he 
identifies  with  the  beings  that  preside  over  the  phenomena 
of  nature.  By  virtue  of  the  law  of  the  unity  of  the 
human  mind,  men  are  constrained  to  bring  their 
religious  and  their  philosophical  views  into  harmony. 
And  thus  arise  nature-gods  and  nature-myths,  which 
are  not,  however,  and  never  have  been,  the  only  ones. 
It  is  a  very  common  error,  and  one  against  which  I 
emphatically  protest,  to  suppose  that  all  the  gods  were 
once  nature -gods,  and  all  the  myths  nature  -  my  ths. 
Were  this  the  case,  the  evolution  of  ethical  religions  out 
of  the  naturistic  would  be  inexplicable,  for  it  would  be 
impossible.  Along  with  the  naturistic  element  we 
discern,  even  among  the  lowest  strata  of  religions,  a 
spiritualistic  element ;  and  it  is  from  this  germ,  which 
has  taken  root  and  grown  up  in  the  soul  of  some  rarely 
gifted  personage,  or  has  attained  full  maturity  in 
some  small  community,  that  the  spiritualistic-ethical  re- 
ligions have  emanated.  To  this  element  belong,  from  the 
.outset,  many  beings  of  the  spiritualistic  period.  In  the 
VOL.  II.  p 


226   -  SCIENCE  OF  RELIGION. 

same  category,  though  on  a  higher  level,  and  still  within 
the  limits  of  the  nature-religions,  we  may  place  the 
Greek  Moire,  Ate,  Dike,  Xike,  Litai,  and  many  others ; 
and  so,  too,  the  personified  abstractions  of  the  Eomans, 
such  as  Salus,  Honos,  Virtus,  Pax,  Libertas,  Pietas,  and 
Pudicitia,  some  of  which  abstractions  came  at  a  later 
period  to  be  associated  with  higher  nature-gods.  And 
is  it  not  noteworthy  that  the  great  gods  gradually  lose 
the  character  of  nature-gods  which  they  had  from  the 
outset  ?  For  we  observe  that  their  divine  personality 
gradually  becomes  disengaged,  so  to  speak,  from  their 
natural ;  and  so  much  so  that  we  are  often  now  ignorant, 
indeed  their  own  worshippers  were  at  loss  to  say,  what 
agency  of  nature  they  represented.  I  need  not  now 
dwell  longer  on  this  matter,  but  it  offers  a  rich  field  for 
further  study.  I  should  like,  however,  to  make  it  clear 
that  this  theory  of  the  origin  of  nature-myths  has  got 
beyond  the  point  at  which  the  origin  of  religion  should 
have  been  accounted  for,  and  has  passed  on  to  an  ex- 
planation of  the  genesis  of  the  forms  of  religion. 

It  seems  to  me  that  the  chief  objections  to  the  theory 
just  sketched  arise  partly  from  the  fact  that  it  combines 
the  impulses  of  religious  with  those  of  philosophical 
needs,  partly  from  the  form  of  abstract  speculation  in 
which  it  has  been  clothed  by  the  philosophers  of 
religion,  and  partly  also  from  the  conclusion  to  which 
it  has  led  Peuerbach.  But  I  have  another  objection  to 
it.     Though  we  regard  as  unwarranted  his  dictum  that 


ORIGIN  OF  RELIGION.  227 

all  is  delusion,  though  we  divest  the  hypothesis  of  its 
technical  terms,  and  remove  from  it  all  that  pertains  to 
a  purely  philosophical  cosmogony,  yet  it  still  continues 
to  account  for  the  origin  of  the  conception  of  faith 
rather  than  for  religious  belief  itself,  and  for  the  piety 
and  adoration  which  we  found  to  be  the  essence  of 
religion.  This  is  apparent,  for  instance,  from  the  words 
in  which  Pfleiderer  describes  it :  "  The  seeking  and  find- 
ing of  a  power  at  once  akin  to  man  and  exalted  above 
him,  which,  in  communion  with  him,  completely  supple- 
ments his  being — that  is  the  origin  of  belief  in  God." 

Yet,  as  I  have  said,  this  theory  leads  us  a  step  in  the 
right  direction.  I  shall  therefore  disregard  all  the  other 
theories,  and  merely  mention  the  latest,  that  of  Professor 
Siebeck,  who  traces  religion  to  man's  dissatisfaction  with 
the  world  and  the  worldly,  as  such,  whence  religion 
derives  its  character  of  world -negation  ("  Weltvernei- 
nung") — a  theory,  however,  which  is  closely  akin  to 
the  one  just  discussed.  Passing  over  all  these  attempts 
to  solve  our  problem,  I  shall  now  submit  to  you  my 
own  view  of  the  subject,  and  endeavour  to  explain  the 
conclusions  I  have  reached. 

Eeligion,  says  Feuerbach,  proceeds  from  man's  wishes, 
desires,  and  aspirations,  which  he  then  comes  to  regard 
as  objects,  and  which  he  worships  as  higher  beings ;  or, 
according  to  others,  it  is  the  outcome  of  his  dissatisfac- 
tion with  the  external  world,  which  begets  the  desire 
for  a  super-terrestrial  world.     No  one  denies  that  such 


228  SCIENCE   OF  RELIGION. 

desires  and  such  dissatisfaction  actually  exist,  and  find 
utterance  in  many  ways.  But  whence  do  they  come  ? 
Why  is  man  discontented  with  his  condition  and  sur- 
roundings ?  Why  should  he  torment  himself  with 
wishes  which  he  never  sees  fulfilled  anywhere  around 
him,  and  which  the  rationalistic  philosopher  declares 
to  be  illusions  ?  Why  is  he  not  as  sensible  as  the  dumb 
animal,  the  senseless  beast  of  the  field,  as  he  calls  it  in 
his  pride,  which  never  w^earies  itself  with  seeking  for 
what  the  earth  does  not  produce,  or  what  earthly  exist- 
ence does  not  offer,  but  is  satisfied  with  what  is  within 
its  reach  and  lives  happy  and  content  ?  Why  ?  Surely 
because  he  cannot  help  it.  Mere  animal,  selfish  enjoy- 
ment cannot  satisfy  him  permanently,  because  he  feels 
that,  as  a  man,  he  has  an  inward  impulse  which  con- 
strains him  to  overstep  the  boundaries  of  the  finite  and 
to  strive  after  an  infinite  perfection,  though  he  knows 
it  to  be  unattainable  for  him  as  an  earthly  being.  The 
Infinite,  the  Absolute,  very  Being,  as  opposed  to  con- 
tinual becoming  and  perishing — or  call  it  as  you  will — 
that  is  the  principle  which  gives  him  constant  unrest, 
because  it  dwells  within  him. 

At  this  point  of  our  inquiry  we  encounter  Professor 
Max  Muller.  According  to  him,  the  perception  or 
apprehension  of  the  Infinite,  the  yearning  of  the  soul 
after  God,  is  the  source  of  all  rehgion  in  the  human 
heart.^     This,  he  thinks,  :can  be  shown  by  historical 

^  Theosophy  :  Gifford  Lectures,  iv.  480. 


ORIGIN  OF  RELIGION.  229 

evidence  to  have  been  the  one  element  shared  by  all 
religions  in  common/  and  he  has  several  times  tried  to 
demonstrate  that  man  really  apprehends  this  infinite. 
Though  attacked  on  all  sides,  he  has  adhered  to  his  pro- 
position, and  has  endeavoured  to  justify  it  by  further 
explanations.  By  apprehension,  and  even  by  sensuous 
perception,  he  says  that  he  only  meant  the  pressure 
which  that  Infinite  brings  to  bear  on  our  senses,  and 
by  means  of  which  it  asserts  its  presence.^  He  also 
distinguished  between  the  divine  presence  which  Kant 
beheld  in  the  starry  firmament,  which  represents  the  in- 
finite in  nature,  and  that  divine  presence  which  he 
perceived  in  his  own  conscience,  or  within  his  own  in- 
visible self,  which  is  the  infinite  in  man.^  And  when 
he  was  charged  with  an  unpardonable  anachronism  in 
assigning  so  abstract  a  term  as  the  Infinite  to  the 
earliest  period  of  the  human  intellect,  he  replied  that 
this  abstract  term,  like  all  others,  originated  in  some- 
thing very  concrete,  from  which  the  idea  we  now  form 
of  it  has  gradually  developed.* 

Notwithstanding  this  defence,  I  am  at  a  loss  to  dis- 
cover the  origin  of  religion  in  a  perception  of  the  In- 
finite. It  seems  to  me  very  much  like  a  sophism  on 
the  part  of  that  distinguished  writer  to  say  that  man, 
on  the  brink  of  the  Finite  perceivable  by  him,  perceives 

^  Ibid.,  p.  vii. 

2  Contributions  to  the  Science  of  Mythology,  p.  292  se^. 
^  Anthropological  Religion  :  GifFord  Lectures,  iii.  393. 
^  Contributions,  p.  293. 


230  SCIENCE  OF  RELIGION. 

the  Infinite.  Man  assumes  it,  he  postulates  it,  he  can- 
not help  thinking  that  infinity  lies  on  the  farther  side 
of  the  boundary  of  his  perception,  but  he  cannot  actually 
see  it.  It  is  only  a  hypothesis,  though  it  be  one  he  is 
driven  to  set  up.  The  phrase  "  perception  of  the 
Infinite "  seems,  moreover,  to  be  a  contradiction  in 
terms,  unless  inward  perception  is  meant,  a  perception 
of  the  Infinite  within  us.  It  is  only  when  Professor 
Mliller  appeals  to  the  latter  that  I  am  at  one  with 
him. 

I  do  not,  however,  assert  that  religion  emanates  from 
a  perception  of  the  Infinite  within  us,  because  such 
perception  requires  a  considerable  measure  of  self- 
knowledge  and  reflection,  which  is  only  attainable 
long  after  religion  has  come  into  existence,  long  after 
the  religious  spirit  has  revealed  itself.  The  origin  of 
religion  consists  in  the  fact  that  man  has  the  Infinite 
within  him,  even  before  he  is  himself  conscious  of  it, 
and  whether  he  recognises  it  or  not.  Whether  this  be 
an  illusion  or  truth  we  do  not  at  present  inquire  ;  nor 
does  the  question  strictly  belong  to  the  scope  of  our 
research.  We  merely  state  a  fact  ;  and  we  may  ex- 
press it  in  the  just  and  beautiful  language  of  Alfred  de 
Musset — 

"  Je  ne  puis  ;  malgre  moi  I'lnfini  me  tourmente, 
Je  n'y  saurais  songer  sans  crainte  et  sans  espoir  ; 
Et  quoi  qu'on  en  ait  dit,  ma  raison  s'epouvante 
De  ne  pas  le  comprendre  et  pourtant  de  le  voir  " — 


ORIGIN  OF  RELIGION.  231 

provided,  of  course,  we  understand  the  last  word  in 
a  figurative,  and  not  in  a  literal  sense. 

Whatever  name  we  give  it — instinct,  or  an  innate, 
original,  and  unconscious  form  of  thought,  or  form  of 
conception — it  is  the  specifically  human  element  in 
man,  the  idea  which  dominates  him.  He  gives  it  pre- 
cedence over  the  Finite  ;  for  with  this  he  only  becomes 
acquainted  by  means  of  the  perception  of  his  senses, 
and  it  is  only  later  that  he  converts  it,  by  means  of 
reasoning,  into  a  general  idea.  But  it  is  neither  by 
perception  nor  by  reflection  that  he  acquires  the  idea 
of  the  Infinite,  although  that  idea  finds  support  in 
psychological  perceptions,  and  becomes  an  object  of  re- 
flection. Even  primitive  man,  as  soon  as  he  comes  to 
apprehend  the  Finite,  regards  it  as  perplexing  and  un- 
natural. It  has  been  observed  in  the  case  of  children, 
for  example,  that  they  are  unable  to  form  any  concep- 
tion of  death.  And  so,  too,  there  are  childlike  peoples. 
Like  the  author  of  the  description  of  Paradise  in  the 
Book  of  Genesis,  they  all  take  for  granted  that  man  is 
by  nature  immortal,  and,  not  that  his  immortality  re- 
quires to  be  proved,  but  that  his  death  requires  to  be 
accounted  for.  Mr  Andrew  Lang  in  his  recent  work  ^ 
has  given  us  a  series  of  very  interesting  examples  of 
this.  Like  everything  finite,  death  seems  to  people  in 
the  earliest  stages  of  civilisation  an  unnatural  thing. 
Something   must    surely  have  happened   to   bring   so 

^  Modern  Mythology,  chap,  viii.,  p.  176  seq. 


232  SCIENCE   OF  RELIGION. 

illogical  an  event  into  the  world.  It  must  be  the  work 
of  hostile  spirits  or  of  sorcery ;  it  must  have  been 
caused  by  some  crime  or  transgression,  perhaps  even 
by  some  imprudence  or  mistake.  The  traditions  of  many 
different  peoples,  differing  in  origin  and  in  develop- 
ment, express  the  same  idea.  There  was  a  time  when 
neither  sickness  nor  death  was  known  upon  earth. 
According  to  Persian  traditions,  the  oldest  race  of  men 
never  died,  but  still  lives,  under  its  mythical  chief,  in 
tranquil  beatitude,  far  from  the  suffering  and  dying 
humanity  of  these  latter  ages.  According  to  the  Baby- 
lonian legend,  the  first  race  of  men  was  destroyed  as  a 
punishment  for  their  evil  deeds  ;  but  one  just  man  was 
saved,  along  with  his  tribe  ;  and  to  these  an  everlasting 
habitation  has  been  assigned,  where  the  brave  hero  of 
the  sun  can  alone  enter  to  disturb  their  repose.  The 
unsophisticated  savage  cannot  even  believe  in  death 
when  he  sees  it  before  his  eyes.  He  calls  it  a  sleep,  a 
condition  of  unconsciousness ;  the  spirit  has  quitted  the 
body,  but  it  may  return.  And  so  he  always  watches  for 
several  days  to  see  if  this  will  happen — a  custom  which 
still  survives  in  some  of  the  higher  strata  of  civilisation, 
as  in  China,  and  among  the  Zarathushtrians.  And  if 
the  dead  man's  spirit  does  not  return,  why  then  he  has 
only  vanished  in  order  to  enter  into  another  body  or  to 
join  the  super-terrestrial  spirits.  And  when  at  length 
the  savage  has  passed  that  stage,  and  when  experience 


ORIGIN  OF  BELIGION.  233 

has  taught  him,  but  too  clearly,  that  not  a  single  man 
exists  who  is  not  subject  to  death,  then,  as  we  have  al- 
ready seen,  he  consoles  himself  by  creating  the  most 
glorious  expectations  for  the  future,  visions  of  unal- 
loyed happiness  and  everlasting  bliss  ! 

And  it  is  to  these  illusions,  as  Feuerbach  has  called 
them,  to  these  self-deceptions,  to  this  Fata  Morgana, 
this  will-of-the-wisp,  that  religion  is  said  to  owe  its 
origin !  Can  such  childish  dreams  have  given  rise  to 
that  faith  which  has  proved  so  stupendous  a  power  in 
the  world's  history,  at  once  destroying  and  inspiring,  or 
to  those  hopes  which  have  sustained  millions  of  our 
fellow-men  amidst  terrible  sufferincrs,  and  lightened 
their  eyes  in  the  agony  of  death  ?  Some  people  may 
answer  in  the  affirmative.  But  it  is  certainly  not  these 
childish  imaginings  that  give  rise  to  religion.  The  pro- 
cess is  the  very  reverse.  It  is  man's  original,  uncon- 
scious, innate  sense  of  infinity  that  gives  rise  to  his 
first  stammering  utterances  of  that  sense,  and  to  all  his 
beautiful  dreams  of  the  past  and  the  future.  These 
utterances  and  these  dreams  may  have  long  since  passed 
away,  but  the  sense  of  infinity  from  which  they  proceed 
remains  a  constant  quantity.  It  is  inherent  in  the 
human  soul.  It  lies  at  the  root  of  man's  whole  spirit- 
ual life.  It  is  revealed  in  his  intellectual,  his  aesthetic, 
and  his  moral  life.  What  man  of  science,  what  phil- 
osopher, what  genuine  artist,  what  truly  moral  man, 


/ 

/ 


234  SCIENCE   OF  RELIGION. 

although  quite  aware  of  the  limitations  of  his  know- 
ledge and  ability,  will  not  ceaselessly  test  his  powers 
anew  and  strive  to  burst  through  his  barriers  ?  Even 
the  moments  of  discouragement  he  experiences  prove 
that  he  is  dissatisfied  with  the  limitations  of  his  ac- 
tivity. And  so  it  is  in  the  reUgious  sphere.  Few  of 
those  who  are  completely  under  the  influence  of  one- 
sided rationalism  or  materialism,  children  of  a  sceptical 
age  which  declares  everything  uncertain  that  does  not 
rest  upon  perception  by  the  senses,  and  which  overrates 
empirical  science  —  few  of  those  who  feel  themselves 
thus  driven  to  the  conclusion  that  "  the  infinite  within 
us"  is  a  beautiful  but  fatal  self-deception — can  feel 
happy  in  that  conclusion.  They  will  perhaps  try  to 
brave  it  out.  The  more  uncomfortable  they  feel  in- 
wardly, the  more  loudly  perhaps  they  will  boast.  Or 
they  will  fall  into  a  gloomy  pessimism  and  they  will 
ask — either  in  private,  ashamed  of  the  confession,  or  in 
public,  and  not  without  bitterness — Is  life  worth  living? 
Or  perhaps,  like  the  sceptic  poet,  they  will  confess, 
with  charming  candour,  that  "  malgre  moi  I'lnfini  me 
tourmente ! " 

It  would  fall  beyond  the  province  of  our  science  to 
prove  that  this  belief  in  the  infinite  within  us  is  well- 
founded,  and  to  vindicate  the  right  of  religion  to  exist. 
Our  science  is  psychological,  and  its  task  is  merely  to 
search  for  the  origin  of  religion  in  man's  spiritual  life. 


•  ORIGIN  OF  RELIGION.  235 

We  leave  the  rest  to  Apologetics  and  Dogmatics,  and, 
on  the  theoretical  side,  to  Metaphysics,  or  that  general 
philosophy  which  seeks  to  fathom  the  deepest  founda- 
tion of  all  things.  But,  though  not  called  upon  to 
prove  the  truth  of  religion,  our  science  is  not  entitled 
to  pronounce  it  an  illusion.  This  would  not  only  be 
an  unwarrantable  conclusion,  but  it  would  make  human 
existence  an  insoluble  riddle,  it  would  brand  mankind 
as  crazy  dreamers,  it  would  pronounce  the  source  of 
all  the  best  work  they  have  ever  done  in  this  world 
to  be  sheer  folly. 

A  further  task,  however,  is  still  incumbent  on  our 
science.  We  must  inquire  whether  the  results  of  sen- 
suous perception  are  not  rather  supplemented  by  those 
of  inward  perception  than  irreconcilably  opposed  to  it. 
A  new  field  is  thus  opened  up,  a  field  of  investigation 
too  little  cultivated,  but  one  which  promises  a  rich 
harvest.  The  conclusions  it  is  likely  to  yield  cannot 
therefore  as  yet  be  summed  up.  An  inquiry  of  this 
kind  would  be  valuable,  because  unbiassed  science 
ought  not  to  be  blind  to  the  truth  that  man  is  not 
merely  a  reasoning  being,  not  merely  intellect  —  the 
truth  that  his  conduct  would  be  foolish  and  mean  if 
he  did  nothing  without  being  able  to  give  a  good 
reason  for  it,  or  to  justify  it  to  his  understanding — 
the  truth,  in  short,  that  his  emotions  as  well  as 
his    reasoning   powers    possess   their   own   inalienable 


236  SCIENCE  OF  RELIGION, 

rights.     And  the  right  of  religion  is  a  right  of  the 
emotions. 

Our  object  to-daj  has  been  to  discover  whence  reli- 
gion proceeds.  It  remains  to  be  seen  how  it  wells  up 
from  its  source.  In  particular  we  shall  have  to  deter- 
mine the  place  it  occupies  in  man's  spiritual  life.  To 
this  task  our  concludinsj  lecture  will  be  devoted. 


237 


LECTUEE    X. 

THE   PLACE   OF   EELIGION   IX   SPIRITUAL  LIFE. 

We  have  endeavoured  to  discover  the  origin  of  religion, 
the  actual  fountainhead  from  which  it  springs ;  and 
we  came  to  the  conclusion  that  it  is  to  be  found  in 
man's  more  or  less  unconscious  sense  of  the  Infinite 
within  him,  or  of  his  participation  in  the  Infinite.  We 
did  not,  however,  examine  the  mode  in  which  relio^ion 
emanates  thence.  The  only  question  we  attempted  to 
answer  was,  how  man  comes  to  be  religious.  But  how 
religion  is  born  within  him  is  a  somewhat  different 
question.  Strictly  speaking,  it  belongs  rather  to  the 
morphological  part  of  our  science ;  but  it  is  so  closely 
bound  up  with  the  ontological  part,  and  is  so  entirely 
determined  by  the  main  question,  that  we  have  been 
unable  to  discuss  it  sooner,  while  it  is  too  important  to 
be  passed  over  in  silence  now. 

And  here  we  again  encounter  those  principles  in 
which  thinkers  of  different  schools,  erroneously  in  our 
opinion,   have  sought   for  the  origin  of   religion,  but 


238  SCIENCE  OF  RELIGION. 

which  undoubtedly  contribute  to  its  birth — namely, 
man's  instinct  of  causality,  his  dissatisfaction  with  the 
worldly  and  the  transitory,  and  his  moral  conscious- 
ness, or,  in  other  words,  his  sense  of  truth,  his  sense  of 
the  beautiful,  and  his  sense  of  duty.  But  while  all 
contribute,  their  action  is  joint  and  mutual,  and  we  are 
unable  to  assign  the  foremost  place  to  any  one  of  them. 
At  a  very  early  period  man  gains  the  experience  that, 
although  the  aspirations  he  cherishes  are  infinite,  it  is 
beyond  his  power,  in  this  world  at  least,  to  realise  them. 
Although  his  mind  brooks  no  limits,  and  although  he 
is  the  microcosm  in  which  he  sees  the  macrocosm 
reflected,  he  soon  becomes  aware  that  he  only  knows 
in  part;  and  he  becomes  more  aware  of  it  as  he 
advances  in  knowledge.  Ever  more  clearly,  in  the 
school  of  life,  he  becomes  acquainted  with  the  limit- 
ations of  his  powers.  For  his  welfare,  his  livelihood, 
his  very  existence,  he  feels  that  he  is  dependent,  physi- 
cally and  morally,  on  a  variety  of  external  circum- 
stances. The  world  he  perceives  corresponds  in  its 
reality  but  little  with  the  ideal  world  created  by  his 
imagination ;  and  the  more  his  experience  of  life  in- 
creases and  the  more  deeply  he  reflects,  the  less  is  he 
satisfied  with  the  real  world.  Not  only  he  himself, 
but  all  around  him,  is  limited,  imperfect,  transient. 
His  intercourse  with  his  fellow-men,  with  friends  and 
enemies,  and  the  social  life  from  which  he  cannot 
escape,  impose  limitations  upon  him,  and  make  him 


RELIGION  IN  SPIRITUAL  LIFE.  239 

feel  that  he  cannot  control  his  own  destinies,  that  they 
are  partly  in  other  hands,  and  that  he  is  a  mere  atom 
in  a  community  to  whose  demands  his  will  must  bow. 
In  many  respects  society  disappoints  him.  If  he  had 
his  own  way,  he  would  order  it  otherwise,  he  would 
thoroughly  reform,  or  perhaps  subvert  it ;  but  he  feels 
that  he  is  powerless.  Powerless  without,  he  is  almost 
equally  powerless  within.  He  has  a  conception  of 
goodness,  a  sense  of  duty,  he  may  perhaps  have  formed 
an  ideal  of  self-denial  and  self-consecration  ;  he  is  con- 
scious that  he  possesses  powers  and  talents,  and  that 
it  is  his  life's  vocation  to  cultivate  and  develop  them ; 
yet  how  lamentably  does  his  practice  fall  short  of  his 
theory  ;  how  inferior  to  his  good  intentions  is  his  power 
to  carry  them  out !  Where  is  he  to  look  for  support 
in  this  struggle  ?  Whom  can  he  trust  if  he  has  lost 
trust  in  himself  ?  Has  he  no  friends,  or  powerful 
protectors  ?  Alas !  they  too  have  sadly  disappointed 
him.  In  moments  of  enthusiasm  we  sometimes  speak 
of  eternal  friendship  and  love,  or  of  eternal  vows,  and 
we  often  hear  of  perpetual  peace,  and  perpetual  edicts 
and  treaties  ;  but  what  has  become  of  them  all  ?  How 
brief  has  their  existence  often  been !  How  frail  are 
often  the  ties  that  were  intended  to  bind  for  ever  ;  how 
many  solemn  treaties  and  edicts  turn  out  to  be  as  value- 
less and  perishable  as  the  paper  on  which  they  are 
written ! 

And  so  overwhelming  may  a  man's  disappointments 


240  SCIENCE   OF  RELIGION. 

be,  that,  in  vexation,  bitterness,  and  despair,  he  loses  all 
belief  in  the  reality  of  the  Infinite,  and  pronounces  all 
his  ceaseless  longings  to  be  idle  dreams  and  delusions. 
There  always  have  been  such  doubters.  Even  in  the 
Egveda  the  pious  man  complains  that  he  has  been  mock- 
ingly asked,  "  Where  is  Indra  now  ?  What  has  become 
of  his  succour  ? "  And  the  same  question  is  asked 
by  the  Hebrew  Psalmist,  "  Where  is  now  thy  God  ?  "  ^ 
Such  unbelievers  are  even  to  be  found  among  primitive 
peoples,  as  missionaries  assure  us.  They  are  commonest, 
however,  in  times  when  intellect  and  material  interests 
are  so  highly  prized  that  the  dictates  of  the  emotions 
are  disregarded.  But  in  the  case  of  the  majority  of 
mankind  this  belief  in  the  Infinite  is  too  firmly  rooted, 
too  inseparably  interwoven  with  their  spiritual  life,  to 
be  discarded  in  deference  to  mere  perceptions  of  the 
finite.  This  belief  gives  them  a  happy  sense  of  being 
special  objects  of  the  care  of  the  beneficent  spirits, 
whom  in  their  childlike  philosophy  they  have  personi- 
fied as  beings  after  their  own  image  ;  and,  when  they 
have  reached  a  higher  stage  of  progress,  they  believe  in 
the  protection  of  that  Almighty  God  against  whom  all 
powers  in  heaven  and  earth  are  powerless.  This  belief 
also  teaches  them  to  regard  these  spirits,  or  that  Holy 
One,  as  the  vindicators  of  truth  and  justice,  the  an- 
tagonists of  the  unbelief  and  deceit  of  which  they  are 
the  victims,  the  avengers  of  forgotten  promises   and 

^  Psalm  xlii.  10  ;  cf.  xiv.  1,  liii.  1,  Ixxix.  10,  and  cxv.  2. 


RELIGION  IN  SPIRITUAL  LIFE.  241 

broken  vows,  and  (when  a  higher  plane  of  religious 
culture  has  been  reached)  as  the  supreme  lawgivers 
from  whom  the  whole  moral  law  derives  its  origin. 
And  so  too,  when  they  contemplate  the  world  of  perish- 
able things,  with  all  its  limits,  its  sins,  and  its  miseries, 
it  is  the  same  faith  that  makes  them  dream  of  a  perfect 
state  which  they  have  forfeited  by  their  transgressions, 
and  makes  them  hope  for,  nay,  confidently  believe  in, 
the  existence  of  a  better  world,  where  all  these  limita- 
tions, imperfections,  and  sorrows  shall  be  no  more — a 
kingdom  of  God  finally  triumphant  on  earth  and  in 
heaven  alike,  a  kingdom  to  which  they  themselves  be- 
long. And  lastly,  well  knowing  their  own  weakness, 
and  having  learned  by  experience  how  vain  is  the  help 
of  man,  they  are  prompted  by  the  same  belief  to  seek 
for  strength  and  support  in  communion  with  the  higher 
world,  whether  they  regard  it  as  peopled  by  a  plurality 
of  powers,  or  have  advanced  so  far  as  to  sum  up  super- 
human power  in  one  infinite,  eternal  Being.  Keligion 
is  thus  generated  by  the  co-operation  of  several  different 
factors,  while  the  source  from  which  it  springs  (psycho- 
logically, not  metaphysically  speaking)  must  ever  lie 
deep  in  the  inmost  recesses  of  the  human  soul. 

But  while  we  have  thus  endeavoured  to  trace  religion 
to  its  source,  and  to  examine  the  process  of  its  genesis, 
there  still  remains  this  important  question  to  be  an- 
swered: What  place  does  religion  occupy  in  our 
spiritual  life  ?     In  what  relation  does  it  stand  to  the 

VOL.  II.  Q 


242  SCIENCE   OF  RELIGION. 

various  other  manifestations  of  that  life  ?  This  is 
perhaps  the  most  difficult  question  of  all.  Let  me, 
however,  again  emphasise  the  fact  that  my  sole  object 
throughout  has  been  to  sketch  an  Introduction  to  the 
science  of  religion — that  is  to  say,  to  indicate  the  lines 
upon  which  a  thorough  study  of  it  ought  to  proceed. 
What  is  the  relation  between  religion,  on  the  one  hand, 
and  science,  art,  and  the  ethical  life,  in  all  its  depart- 
ments, on  the  other  ?  Such  is  the  problem  which  I 
propose  to  glance  at  to-day.  I  cannot  claim  to  have 
finally  solved  it ;  but  I  am  at  least  bound  to  submit  it 
to  you  and  to  state  my  views  on  the  subject. 

Eeligion  has  sometimes  been  described  as  either  a 
kind  of  science  or  philosophy,  or  as  a  kind  of  poetry,  or 
as  a  heteronomous  system  of  morality,  or  perhaps  as  a 
compound  of  two  or  more  of  these  elements.  It  would 
in  that  case  belong  either  to  the  intellectual,  or  to  the 
aesthetic,  or  to  the  ethical  domain,  or  it  might  be  re- 
garded as  a  transition  from  one  of  these  domains  to 
another.  When  Vinet  somewhere  calls  religion  a 
science,  we  must  not  take  this  in  its  literal  sense. 
Others,  however,  regard  the  doctrines  of  religion  as  a 
primitive  kind  of  philosophy  which  has  survived  from 
an  earlier  period,  but  which  must  gradually  be  super- 
seded by  the  fruits  of  maturer  reflection.  The  theolo- 
gical period  of  the  world,  as  the  Positivists  teach,  will 
be  succeeded  by  the  purely  philosophical,  and,  with  the 
latter,  religion  will  come  to  an  end.    According  to  Karl 


RELIGION  IK  SPIRITUAL  LIFE.  243 

Schwartz,^  dogma  and  cult  are  merely  two  imperfect 
and  intermediate  forms  of  knowing  and  acting,  being 
transitional  to  the  pure  knowledge  of  science  and  the 
pure  action  of  concrete  morality.  He  does  not  of  course 
mean  by  this  that  religion  is  only  a  passing  phenomenon 
in  the  development  of  mankind,  for  no  one  has  striven 
more  earnestly  than  he  to  confirm  and  strengthen  re- 
ligious life.  But  he  doubtless  means  that  the  concep- 
tions of  faith  in  the  form  of  dogmas,  and  religious 
observances  as  an  organised  system  of  worship,  are 
mere  transitory  phenomena,  while  religion  itself  will 
still  continue  to  exist,  partly  as  a  science,  and  partly  as 
a  moral  rule  of  life. 

Others  again  regard  religion  as  a  manifestation  of  the 
sesthetic  sentiment,  as  a  kind  of  poetry.  According  to 
the  esprits  cVelite,  the  value  of  religion  consists,  not  in 
the  cruder  externals  in  which  the  vulgar  dehght,  but 
solely  in  its  poetic  or  aesthetic  element.  "  Si  vous  etiez 
Chretien,"  as  Ernest  Eenan  once  wrote  to  his  friend 
Bertholet,'-^  "la  partie  esthetique  du  christianisme, 
vraiment  saisie,  suffirait  pour  satisfaire  a  ce  besoin. 
Car,  au  fait,  la  religion  n'est  que  cela,  la  part  de  I'ideal 
dans  la  vie  humaine,  une  fa9on  moins  epuree,  mais  plus 
originale  et  plus  populaire  d'adorer."  And  it  is  well 
known  that  Professor  E.  F.  Apelt  of  Jena,  a  disciple  of 
Fries,  the  philosopher,  actually  built  up,  some  forty  years 

1  Das  AYesen  der  Religion,  1847. 

2  Revue  de  Paris,  1  aoiit  1897,  p.  504. 


244  SCIENCE  OF  RELIGION. 

ago,  a  whole  system  of  the  philosophy  of  religion  upon 
aesthetic  ideas.^ 

But  there  is  a  far  greater  number  of  persons  who,  if 
they  do  not  entirely  identify  religion  with  morality, 
regard  the  former  as  a  manifestation  of  moral  con- 
sciousness which  corresponds  with  a  certain  stage  of 
development,  and  is  alone  adapted  to  that  stage. 
They  look  upon  religion  as  practically  amounting  to  a 
recognition  of  the  moral  laws  within  us,  as  identical 
with  the  commands  of  a  Lawgiver  above  us.  And  in 
their  view,  the  religious  life  is  merely  an  imperfect  form 
of  the  moral  life  ;  while  the  moral  life  is  destined,  when 
it  attains  its  highest  development,  to  rise  superior  to  all 
heterouomous  dictation,  obeying  no  law  from  without 
or  from  above,  but  governed  solely  by  the  law  written 
in  our  hearts.  The  classical  expression  for  this  view  is 
Matthew  Arnold's  definition  of  religion  as  "  morality 
touched  by  emotion." 

After  all  that  I  have  said  about  the  essence  of  re- 
ligion, does  it  need  detailed  argument  to  show  that 
those  who  reason  thus  are  on  a  wrong  track  ?  There 
are  of  course  points  of  contact  between  religion  and  the 
other  activities  of  man's  spiritual  life.  How  can  it  be 
otherwise  ?  For  the  human  spirit  is  one  and  indivis- 
ible, though  revealing  itself  in  different  ways.     N'ay, 

^  Religionsphilosophie,  Leipzig,  1860,  e.g.  p.  142  :  "In  den  religiosen 
Stimmungen  des  Gefiihls  beziehen  wir  das  Menschenleben  sowohl  wie 
das  erscheinende  Weltall,  kraft  dcr  cisthetischen  Ideen  die  daran  lie- 
gen,  auf  die  iiberirdischen  Wahrheiten  des  Glaubens." 


RELIGION  IN  SPIRITUAL   LIFE.  245 

there  is  more  than  contact,  there  is  kinship  between 
the  religious,  the  philosophical,  the  poetical,  and  the 
moral  principles  within  us.  How  close  this  relationship 
is  will  appear  immediately.  Man's  eagerness  to  know 
and  to  penetrate  to  the  very  root  of  things,  and  his 
longing  to  soar  upon  the  wings  of  imagination  to  the 
world  of  the  ideal,  are  shared  by  all  truly  religious 
people,  and  by  every  philosopher  and  every  poet  alike. 
Nor  can  it  be  denied  that  religion  has  its  own  ethics 
and  its  doctrines  of  life,  and  that  true  piety  is  dis- 
played, not  merely  in  rites  and  ceremonies,  but  in  the 
believer's  whole  life.  As  our  study  of  religious  devel- 
opment has  already  satisfied  us,  religion  requires,  for 
the  promotion  of  its  growth,  to  assimilate  certain 
elements  from  science  and  philosophy,  from  aesthetics 
and  ethics  :  how  could  it  do  so,  unless  it  were  akin  to 
them  ?  The  fact  is,  that  morality,  art,  and  science 
cannot  be  severed  from  religion,  except  to  their  mutual 
injury ;  but  it  is  equally  certain  that  they  ought  not  to 
be  confounded  with  one  another. 

They  differ  essentially.  But,  in  the  objects  at  which 
they  respectively  aim,  they  differ  less  than  one  would 
suppose.  The  differences  might  be  stated  thus.  What 
the  religious  man  strives  for  is  peace  of  soul,  the  true 
and  eternal  life,  unity  with  God.  With  him  the  para- 
mount question  is,  "  What  shall  I  do  to  be  saved  ? " 
The  philosopher  and  the  man  of  science,  on  the  other 
hand,  are    solely   concerned  with  gaining   knowledge. 


246  SCIENCE   OF  RELIGION. 

The  poet  finds  happiness  in  his  ideals.  Like  every 
artist,  he  is  satisfied  if  he  succeeds  in  animating  his 
creations  with  the  beautiful  that  he  has  met  with  in 
the  world  around  him,  or  that  lives  within  himself. 
Lastly,  the  moral  law  only  requires  us,  within  the 
limits  of  our  earthly  existence,  to  perform  faithfully  all 
our  duties  to  our  fellow-men,  whether  as  members  of 
the  family,  society,  or  the  State,  or  to  walk  uprightly, 
honestly,  and  purely.  Yet,  while  we  have  stated  these 
differences,  there  is  in  reality  no  sharp  demarcation 
between  these  departments  of  spiritual  life.  For  in  the 
ethical  life,  as  in  the  religious,  peace  of  mind  is  one  of 
the  objects  sought  for,  and  it  is  only  to  be  found  in  a 
state  of  unceasing  development.  Nor  does  the  man  of 
science  rest  satisfied  with  knowing.  He  desires  also  to 
understand,  and  to  systematise  and  unify  his  knowledge. 
The  philosopher  tries  to  fatliom  the  origin  of  things, 
but  he  also  expects  that  philosophy  will  reconcile  him 
with  himself  and  the  world.  So  that  scientists  and  phil- 
osophers alike,  to  a  certain  extent,  also  seek  for  content- 
ment of  soul.  And  does  the  artist  never  aim,  in  the 
pursuit  of  his  art,  at  something  beyond  esthetic  enjoy- 
ment ?  Does  he  not  often  throw  his  whole  soul  into  his 
works,  and  thus  stake  his  happiness  upon  their  success  ? 
The  difference  must  be  sought  for  elsewhere.  It 
consists  chiefly  in  this,  that,  while  science,  art,  and 
morality  yield  a  certain  satisfaction,  or  even  a  consider- 
able measure  of  happiness,  they  never  produce  that 


RELIGION  IN  {SPIRITUAL  LIFE.  247 

perfect  peace  of  mind,  that  entire  reconciliation  with 
one's  self  and  one's  worldly  lot,  which  are  the  fmits  of 
religion,  and  have  ever  characterised  the  truly  pious  of 
all  ages.  The  greatest  genius,  the  acutest  investigator, 
and  the  profoundest  thinker,  who  have  studied  the 
most  difficult  of  problems,  and  have  made  darkness 
light  for  themselves  and  others,  will  be  the  first  to 
confess  the  limitations  of  their  knowledge  and  the  in- 
solubility of  many  of  their  problems,  and  to  admit  that 
faith  alone  can  answer  the  momentous  and  vital  ques- 
tions— Whence  and  whither  ?  Poetry  and  art  may 
brighten  this  earthly  life  with  their  lustre,  they  may 
mitigate  sorrow  and  soothe  the  troubled  mind;  but 
they  can  only  give  true  rest  to  the  soul  when  they 
serve  to  bring  home  to  it  some  great  religious  truth  in 
a  beautiful  and  striking  form.  And  even  the  strictly 
moral  man,  who  can  boast  of  having  kept  all  the  com- 
mandments from  his  youth  upwards — unless  utterly 
deluded  by  self-satisfaction — must  often  feel  that  he 
lacks  something,  the  one  thing  needful.  And  further, 
while  no  single  function  of  man's  inner  life  is  ex- 
clusively active  in  science,  art,  and  morality,  yet  one 
or  more  is  generally  predominant — in  one  case  the 
will,  in  another  the  intellect  and  judgment,  in  a  third 
the  imagination  and  emotions.  In  religion,  on  the 
other  hand,  as  we  have  already  observed,  none  of  these 
functions  can  have  the  mastery,  as  otherwise  religion 
would  degenerate  into  intellectualism,  fanaticism,  mys- 


248  SCIENCE   OF  RELIGION. 

ticism,  moralism,  or  some  other  craze.  In  religion  all 
one's  faculties  must  work  together  in  harmony,  none 
being  entitled  to  precedence.  The  old  sayings  that 
"  religion  embraces  the  whole  man,"  and  that  "  religion 
occupies  the  central  place  in  man's  spirit,"  are  not 
perhaps  strictly  accurate,  and  at  all  events  the  im- 
portant conclusions  they  involve  have  not  been  drawn 
from  them ;  but  they  bear  witness  to  the  fact  that  men 
have  long  been  convinced  of  the  many-sided  character 
of  religion.  The  proposition  that  religion  is  the  essen- 
tial in  man  has  been  admirably  maintained  by  the  dis- 
tinguished Dutch  poet-theologian,  Abraham  des  Amorie 
van  der  Hoeven,  jun.  It  is  certain,  at  all  events,  that 
religion,  along  with  all  that  is  truly  great  in  man's 
aims  and  actions,  emanates  directly  from  the  distinc- 
tive badge  of  his  humanity — the  Infinite  within  him. 

All  the  mental  and  moral  faculties  are  thus  different 
and  yet  akin — akin  to  one  another  and  akin  to  religion 
also.  How  far  is  this  the  case  ?  Are  they  akin  solely 
because  they  are  all  manifestations  of  one  and  the 
same  spirit,  or  is  their  relationship  still  closer  ?  May 
not  science,  art,  and  morality  possibly  have  sprung 
from  religion ;  may  they  not  be  cuttings  from  the  same 
parent  stem,  which  have  grown  up  as  independent 
trees  ?  This  proposition  has  lately  been  emphatically 
affirmed.^     Eeligion,  say  the  advocates  of  this  theory, 

1  Morris  Jastrow,   jun.,   The   Modern   Attitude   towards   Religion  : 
Ethical  Addresses,   ser.   iv.,   No.   8  :  Philadelphia,  1897. 


RELIGION  IN  SPIRITUAL  LIFE.  249 

is  the  mother  of  all  civilisation,  having  alone  given  it 
the  first  impulse.  It  was  religion  that  educated  man 
to  be  a  moral  being,  having  first  awakened  his  moral 
sense.  Eeligion  alone,  having  taught  him  obedience  to 
the  powers  above  him,  likewise  taught  him  to  use  self- 
control,  and  to  sacrifice  self  and  selfish  aims,  for  the  pur- 
pose of  attaining  objects  of  higher  value.  It  was  religion 
that  gave  him  an  ideal  and  ceaseless  aim  beyond  his 
mere  struggle  for  existence.  It  was  religion,  too,  that 
gave  birth  to  art  and  letters.  The  earliest  works  of 
art  are  attempts,  on  the  part  of  half-civilised  man,  to 
give  a  dignified  form  to  the  creations  of  his  religious 
imagination,  and  to  provide  splendid  and  permanent 
dwellings  for  the  beings  whom  he  worships.  While  he 
himself  lives  in  a  poor  hut,  the  temples  he  erects  in 
honour  of  his  gods  bear  striking  testimony  to  his  ability 
and  perseverance,  and  they  are  enriched  with  the  most 
beautiful  decoration  that  his  barbaric  taste  can  suggest. 
The  earliest  literature  is  purely  religious,  and  later 
literature  too.  The  whole  of  the  literature  of  antiquity, 
from  the  Egyptian,  Babylonian,  Indian,  and  Persian 
down  to  the  Greek,  and  a  large  proportion  of  the  Eoman, 
is,  as  it  were,  saturated  with  religion.  And  the  same 
remark  applies  to  the  Middle  Ages.  The  poetry  and 
the  history  usually  termed  profane  are  of  comparatively 
late  origin,  and  even  in  them  the  influence  of  religion 
is  still  traceable.  And  may  not  science  too,  in  all  its 
branches,  be  fairly  described  as  the  offspring  of  reli^ 


250  SCIENCE  OF  RELIGION. 

gion  ?  Priests,  or  religious  men  at  least,  were  the  first 
teachers  of  mankind,  and  they  were  the  first  to  ad- 
minister justice  in  the  name  of  the  gods.  All  the 
earliest  princes  had  a  sacerdotal  character,  and,  as  we 
still  say  of  our  modern  monarchs,  they  ruled  by  the 
grace  of  God.  The  gods  themselves,  according  to  the 
unanimous  belief  of  the  ancients,  were  the  first  law- 
givers. Astrology  has  given  birth  to  astronomy,  sorcery 
and  'witchcraft  to  medicine  and  natural  history,  and 
religious  contemplation  to  all  philosophy.  The  oldest 
philosophy  of  the  Indians,  as  embodied  in  the  Upan- 
ishads,  is  rooted  in  the  sacred  Veda,  and  is  even  called 
Vedanta,  or  the  end  of  Veda.  And  what  is  the  phil- 
osophy of  the  Greeks,  as  represented  in  its  first  rudi- 
ments by  the  Ionian  school,  but  mythology  translated 
into  abstract  ideas  ?  On  all  sides,  in  short,  we  find 
abundant  evidence  in  support  of  the  theory  that  art, 
science,  and  philosophy,  law,  ethics,  and  politics,  though 
now  separate  and  independent  departments,  were  all 
originally  offshoots  of  religion. 

Such  is  the  theory.  I  cannot,  however,  see  my  way 
to  indorse  it,  except  perhaps  to  a  limited  extent.  In 
the  first  place,  to  begin  with  the  last  of  the  arguments 
stated,  mythology  was  not  originally  and  properly  a 
religious  doctrine,  any  more  than  the  animism  with 
which  it  is  so  closely  connected ;  it  was  simply  a  crude 
form  of  philosophy,  an  explanation  of  those  phenomena 
which  struck  man's  dawning  apprehensions  as  requiring 


RELIGION  IN  SPIRITUAL  LIFE.  251 

to  be  accounted  for.  Eeligious  doctrine  doubtless  bor- 
rowed much  of  its  material  from  mythology,  and 
blended  it  with  its  own  purely  religious  speculations ; 
but  it  certainly  cannot  be  called  the  source  of  myth- 
ology. It  is  true  that  the  priesthood,  or  rather  certain 
religious  castes,  gradually  monopolised  scriptural  learn- 
ing, literature,  art,  every  branch  of  knowledge,  and  even 
the  public  administration  of  justice,  and  usurped  an 
overweening  authority  both  in  and  over  the  state.  But 
this  occurred  only  after  long  struggles  for  the  mastery. 
Sacerdotal  castes  are  not  to  be  found  in  the  infancy  of 
history.  We  know  their  origin,  and  we  can  trace  their 
growth. 

Let  us  next  test  the  theory  in  the  case  of  architecture. 
Although  it  is  not  absolutely  certain,  I  believe  that 
further  investigation  will  establish  the  fact,  that  the 
oldest  buildings  known  to  history  were  castles  or 
strongholds,  which  indeed  often  contained  a  chamber 
dedicated  to  the  deity,  but  which  were  assuredly  not 
temples.  It  is  certain,  at  any  rate,  that  in  India,  in 
Hellas,  and  in  Italy  the  temple  proper  is  of  compara- 
tively late  origin,  making  its  appearance  long  after 
other  important  buildings  had  been  erected.  From  the 
Bible  we  learn  that  David  possessed  his  castle  and  his 
cedar  palace,  while  Yahve  still  dwelt  in  the  tabernacle. 
The  tombs  of  the  kings  and  magnates  of  Egypt  are 
older  than  any  of  the  temples  we  know,  although, 
according  to  some  vague  traditions,  there  are  temples 


252  SCIENCE   OF  RELIGION. 

which  trace  their  origin  to  the  remotest  antiquity.  It 
is  specially  noteworthy  that  the  oldest  sculptures  of 
Egypt,  and  perhaps  those  of  Babylonia  also,  are  far 
superior,  both  in  point  of  artistic  ability  and  in  freedom 
and  truth  of  conception,  to  the  works  produced  by  later 
ages  in  those  countries,  as  the  artists  were  then  tied 
down  by  priestly  tradition  to  certain  rigid  conventional 
forms  in  their  delineation  of  the  human  figure.  Again, 
in  the  case  of  literature,  it  is  a  mistake  to  say  that  the 
oldest  literature  is  exclusively  religious,  in  the  sense 
that  its  object  was  solely  to  extol  the  gods  or  to 
minister  to  their  ritual.  I  will  not  insist  on  the  fact 
that  the  maxims  of  Ptahhotep  (the  Prisse  Papyrus), 
which  is  reputed  the  oldest  book  in  the  world,  is  a 
collection  of  moral  sentiments,  somewhat  in  the  style 
of  the  Book  of  Ecclesiastes  in  the  Old  Testament ;  for 
it  w^as  preceded  by  other  writings  in  the  shape  of 
inscriptions  engraved  in  stone,  such  as  the  Pyramid 
texts,  which,  being  destined  to  equip  the  deceased  for 
his  struggles  in  the  lower  world,  naturally  partook  of 
a  magical,  mythical,  or  semi-religious  character.  But 
beside  these  texts  there  are  others,  equally  old,  which 
are  non-religious,  such  as  the  biographical  inscriptions 
in  the  tomb  of  Una,  of  the  sixth  Dynasty.  Nor  do  I 
insist  on  the  fact  that  the  earliest  Assyrian  texts  we 
are  acquainted  with,  while  not  omitting  to  do  homage 
to  the  gods,  always  gave  precedence  to  the  great 
military  exploits  of  the  kings,  after  which  they  narrate 


RELIGION  IN  SPIRITUAL  LIFE.  253 

how  these  monarchs  built  or  restored  the  sanctuaries 
of  their  gods ;  for  the  Assyrian  civilisation  is  either 
an  offshoot  of  the  Babylonian,  or  a  graft  upon  it,  while 
the  origins  of  the  latter,  far  back  as  its  records  extend, 
are  still  undiscovered.  And  after  all,  when  we  desire 
to  trace  the  course  of  the  earliest  civilisation,  we  are 
hardly  justified  in  appealing  to  the  oldest  civilised 
states,  such  as  Babylon,  Egypt,  and  China ;  for,  when 
these  appeared  on  the  scene,  they  had  already  reached 
a  high  state  of  culture,  which  implied  long  ages  of 
previous  development.  Nor  will  India  serve  our  pur- 
pose, for  the  Egveda  itself,  as  a  collection  and  a  sacred 
text,  is  relatively  modern,  and  moreover  contains  several 
purely  secular  hymns.  But  let  us  rather  turn  our  at- 
tention to  nations  which  we  have  seen  emerging  from 
barbarism  and  gradually  ascending  in  the  scale  of  civil- 
isation. In  the  case  of  Hellas,  for  example,  the  earliest 
great  work  handed  down  to  us  is  an  epic  poem,  which 
preceded  the  Homeric  hymns  and  the  Theogony  of 
Hesiod.  Again,  in  the  case  of  Israel,  the  triumph-song 
of  Deborah  and  David's  lament  over  Saul  and  Jonathan 
are  among  the  oldest  specimens  of  Hebrew  poetry, 
while  the  references  contained  in  the  sacerdotal  and 
prophetic  Scriptures  show  that  they  must  have  been 
preceded  by  purely  secular  histories.  From  such  in- 
stances as  these  it  is  abundantly  clear  that,  from  the 
remotest  antiquity,  there  has  existed  a  purely  secular 
literature,  parallel  with  the  purely  religious,  but  quite 


254  SCIENCE  OF  BELIGION. 

distinct  from  it,  while  there  is  absolutely  no  evidence 
to  show  that  the  religious  is  the  older  of  the  two. 

Nor  is  there  any  better  evidence  to  support  the 
theory,  however  attractive  it  may  seem,  that  religion 
is  the  mother  of  all  civilisation.  Philosophy  and 
science,  poetry  and  art,  ethics  and  law,  all  flow  from 
man's  spiritual  life,  but  from  distinct  sources,  to  which 
they  must  be  traced  by  other  sciences  than  ours.  Yet 
the  theory,  which,  in  its  general  application,  I  have 
felt  bound  to  oppose,  contains  a  great  truth.  For  it 
shows,  at  least,  that  religion  responds  to  the  most 
widely  prevalent  and  predominant  need  of  the  human 
soul ;  it  shows  that  religion,  though  not  the  mother  of 
civilisation,  exerts  the  profoundest  and  mightiest  in- 
fluence over  it,  while  in  turn  it  gains  sustenance 
from  civilisation,  borrowing  from  it,  and  assimilating, 
whatever  may  conduce  to  its  own  growth.  Religion  is  so 
intimately  bound  up  with  man's  personality  that  it 
wields  a  kind  of  central  authority  over  all  the  other 
activities  of  his  spiritual  life.  It  is,  in  fact,  the  great 
motive  power  of  all  higher  development  and  progress. 
If  it  slumbers,  or  is  altogether  dead,  poor  man  drifts 
about  like  a  helpless  log  on  the  ocean  of  life.  If  a  man 
thirsts  for  knowledge,  and  especially  if  he  is  earnestly 
in  search  of  truth,  religion  impels  him  to  dig  deeper  or 
to  climb  higher ;  it  inspires  the  poet  and  the  artist  to 
make  the  best  use  of  their  powers,  and  to  cultivate  their 
noblest  gifts ;  it  will  not  suffer  us  to  rest  complacently 


RELIGION  IN  SPIRITUAL  LIFE.  255 

content  with  the  observance  of  social  or  churchly 
morality,  but  constantly  holds  up  before  our  eyes  the 
loftier  aim,  "  Be  ye  perfect,  as  your  Father  in  heaven 
is  perfect ! "  Everything  finite  it  places  in  the  light  of 
the  Infinite.  All  the  great  epochs  in  human  history 
have  been  the  outcome  of  some  religious  reform. 
Nothing  can  be  more  absurd,  or  rather  nothing  sadder, 
than  an  attempt  to  ignore  religion  in  the  writing  of 
history.  Whether  we  love  or  hate  it,  prize  or  despise 
it,  we  must  needs  reckon  with  it.  If,  as  Mr  Morris 
Jastrow  has  finely  said,  you  turn  your  back  upon 
religion,  you  will  see  it  facing  you  from  the  opposite 
direction.  And  if  you  try  to  shut  your  eyes  to  it,  you 
will  get  no  peace,  because  it  dwells  within  you. 

But  perhaps  wise  people  will  shake  their  heads,  and 
ask,  with  a  superior  smile,  whether  all  this  is  ideal  or 
reality,  fact  or  fiction.  Actual  history,  they  will  per- 
haps say,  gives  a  very  different  account  of  the  matter. 
Eeligion  the  mainspring  of  progress  and  culture  I 
Surely  the  reverse  is  the  case.  On  one  side  we  see 
religion  at  deadly  enmity  with  science  and  philosophy, 
or  at  least  dictating  to  them  the  result  of  their  re- 
searches, and  coercing  its  adherents  into  obedience,  or 
persecuting  them  to  the  death,  if  they  presume  to  rebel 
against  the  tyranny  of  dogmas.  Is  it  not  the  irrecon- 
cilable enemy  of  free,  impartial,  and  unprejudiced  re- 
search, whose  wings  it  always  tries  to  clip  ?  And  it  is 
not  only  owing  to  special  causes  in  the  case  of  Chris- 


256  SCIENCE   OF  RELIGION. 

tianity  during  the  last  four  centuries,  as  has  sometimes 
been  maintained,  but  in  all  ages,  from  West  to  far 
East,  that  religion  has  been  hostile  to  the  boldest 
thinkers  and  investigators.  In  another  direction  we 
see  religion  bridling  poetry  and  art,  imposing  laws  upon 
them  which  they  dare  not  transgress,  hampering  them 
in  their  free  development,  and  even  denouncing  them 
as  temptations  of  the  Devil.  On  moral  life,  in  par- 
ticular, it  has  had  a  baneful  influence.  While  true 
morality  incites  us  to  seek  and  embrace  the  good  for 
its  own  sake,  and  because  we  love  it,  and  to  reject  the 
evil  because  we  abhor  it,  religion  comes  with  its  pro- 
mises of  reward  and  threats  of  punishment,  and  thus 
taints  pure  morality  with  selfish  motives.  Nay,  have 
there  not  even  been  persons  who  liave  seriously,  as  far 
at  least  as  their  limited  observation  would  permit,  tried 
to  collect  statistics  regarding  religious  and  moral  life, 
in  order  to  prove  that  the  further  religion  progresses 
in  power  and  influence,  the  more  morality  declines  ? 
Paris,  the  modern  Babylon,  as  it  has  been  called — 
though  J  am  not  sure  that  either  Paris  or  Babylon 
would  suffer  much  from  a  comparison  with  other 
capitals,  great  or  small — Paris,  we  are  told,  is  plunging 
ever  more  deeply  into  a  sink  of  iniquity,  and  yet  Paris 
is  daily  becoming  more  pious !  At  all  events  it  is  a 
well-known  fact  that  religion  often  serves  as  a  cloak 
for  all  kinds  of  sins  and  misdeeds. 

While  I  admit  most  of  these  facts,  I  demur  to  the 


RELIGION  IN  SPIRITUAL  LIFE.  257 

manner  in  which  they  are  grouped,  and  to  the  conclu- 
sions drawn  from  them.  Assuming  it  to  be  the  case 
that  morality  declines  as  the  influence  of  religion  in- 
creases, and  that  the  converse  is  also  true,  this  would 
prove  nothing  to  the  detriment  of  religion  unless  it 
could  be  proved  that  it  was  the  same  individuals  who 
became  at  once  less  moral  and  more  pious,  or  more 
moral  and  less  pious,  whereas  the  individuals  are 
certainly  different.  If  there  is  any  real  connection 
between  the  two  phenomena,  it  may  possibly  be  the 
case  that  an  increasing  number  of  persons  are  prompted 
to  seek  strength  and  comfort  in  religious  observances, 
partly  as  a  protest  against  increasing  immorality,  and 
partly  from  real  penitence  and  contrition.  But  it  is 
obviously  only  possible  to  compare  persons  who  are 
outwardly  religious  with  those  whose  outward  conduct 
is  bad ;  it  is  obviously  impossible  to  reduce  true  piety 
and  morality  to  the  form  of  a  table  of  statistics. 

The  view  that  religion  promotes  and  hallows  all 
civilisation  seems  irreconcilable  with  the  view  that  it 
is  hostile  to  free  development  in  every  sphere.  But 
this  is  not  really  the  case.  There  is  no  real  antagon- 
ism, because  the  disputants  are  at  cross  purposes.  For 
here,  as  so  often  happens,  there  is  a  confusion,  or  rather 
a  double  confusion,  of  terms.  The  terms  religion  and 
civilisation  are  both  used  by  the  disputants  in  different 
senses.  One  man  means  religion  in  general,  as  a  frame 
of  mind,  an  emotion,  and  at  the  same  time  as  the  in- 

VOL.  II,  E 


258  SCIENCE   OF  RELIGION. 

spiration  of  a  higher  spirit ;  his  opponent  speaks  of  a 
religion,  meaning  one  of  those  transient  forms  of  reli- 
gious life  which,  having  served  its  time  and  fallen  into 
decay,  cannot  tolerate  those  revelations  of  progress  in 
the  spiritual  domain  which  mark  the  awakening  of  a 
new  life.  One  man  is  speaking  of  true  science,  which 
confines  itself  to  its  own  sphere ;  his  opponent  refers 
to  that  arrogant  and  presumptuous  though  very  super- 
ficial science  which,  arguing  from  a  few  isolated  data, 
would  deny  the  existence  of  one  of  the  elements,  pro- 
bably the  most  important  element,  in  human  nature. 
One  man  is  referring  to  that  art  which  seeks  nothino' 
but  what  is  noble  and  beautiful;  another  is  thinking 
of  that  depraved  art  which  ministers  to  base  and  sordid 
objects,  and  is  worse  than  brutal.  In  this  matter,  there- 
fore, we  must  refrain  from  premature  generalisations. 
If  religious  persons,  or  those  who  are  called  upon  to 
act  as  representatives  of  religious  life,  oppose  a  science 
or  philosophy  which  denies  to  religion  any  right  of 
existence,  they  are  perfectly  justified  in  doing  so ;  for 
such  science  or  philosophy  exceeds  its  authority,  and 
usurps  a  right  of  judgment  which  does  not  belong  to  it. 
If  they  find  that  art  or  poetry,  instead  of  ennobling 
mankind,  has  a  degrading  and  depraving  influence,  they 
rightly  denounce  it,  not  from  narrow-mindedness,  but 
because  it  is  {IflJ  their  sacred  duty.  They  will  not,  on 
the  other  hand,  oppose  or  persecute  those  who  open  up 
new  paths,  the  greatest  thinkers,  and  the  most  gifted 


RELIGION  IN  SPIRITUAL   LIFE.  259 

artists  and  poets ;  nor  will  they,  for  the  sake  of  main- 
taining some  narrow  old  view  of  life,  seek  to  prevent 
ethical  science  from  developing  freely  in  accordance  with 
its  own  principles.     All  this  they  leave  to  be  done  by 
the  representatives  of  some  form  of  religion  which  has 
outlived  its  time,  whose  doctrine  represents  the  views 
of  life  and  the  world  held  at  the  time  of  its  foundation, 
and  which  has  thus  fallen  far  below  the  level  of  the 
science  and  philosophy,  the  knowledge  of  the  world, 
and  the  civilisation  of  a  later  age.     Fancying  that,  with 
their  doctrine,  religion  itself  must  stand  or  fall,  the 
champions    of    an    effete    system    stoutly   oppose   all 
dangerous  innovations.     They  act  in  good  faith,  but 
they  are  wrong.     Eeligion  is  not  threatened.    Although 
certain  religious  views  may  conflict  with  scientific  facts, 
religion  itself  is  not  endangered  by  any  legitimate  result 
of  scientific  research,  by  any  utterance  of  true  art,  or 
by  any  philosophical  or   ethical  system   thoughtfully 
based  on  sound  principles.     On  the  contrary,  all  this 
promotes  the  growth  of  religion,  compelling  it  to  re- 
mould antiquated  forms,  which  injure  it  by  clinging  to 
old  errors,  and  to  bring  them  into  harmony  with  the 
needs  of  the  age. 

I  do  not,  therefore,  in  the  least  apprehend  that  the 
conflict  between  the  different  spheres  of  spiritual  life, 
and  particularly  between  civilisation  and  the  various 
religions,  will  either  lead  to  the  entire  subjection  of  all 
intellect  and  talent,  of  all  research  and  thouc^ht,  to  the 


260  SCIENCE  OF  RELIGION. 

dictates  of  any  sacerdotal  caste  or  theological  school,  or 
else  end  in  the  complete  extinction  of  religion.     It  will 
rather  lead  to  a  fuller  development  of  religious  life,  to 
a  nobler  revelation  of  the  religious  spirit.     During  the 
last  fifty  or  sixty  years,  a  theory  which  the  boldest  free- 
thinker once  scarcely  dared  to  utter  has  been  pretty 
loudly  proclaimed  in  various  quarters — the  theory  that 
mankind  may  henceforth  live  quite  happily,  nay,  more 
happily  than  ever,  without  religion.     Art,  according  to 
some,  would  offer  what  was  formerly  expected  of  re- 
ligion.    But  this  view  has  found  few  adherents,  because 
the  worship  of  the  beautifid  is  necessarily  possible  for 
a  few  privileged  persons  only,  and  is  beyond  the  reach 
of  the  poor,  careworn,  toiling  millions,  struggling  for 
bare  existence.     According  to  a  much  commoner  theory, 
science  might  take  the  place  of  religion.     Science,  the 
great  liberator  of  the  human  mind,  was  thought  to  be 
capable  of  ensuring  the  welfare  and  happiness  of  man- 
kind.    Diffused  among  all  classes  of  society,  it  would 
deliver   the   lowly    and    ignorant    from   oppression,   it 
would   solve   the   social   question,  and  cure  all  social 
evils  !    Surely  this  was  a  delusion,  though  its  object  was 
a  generous  one.     And  am  I  not  right  in  saying  that  the 
fond  expectations  of  those  who  were  led  away  by  this 
theory  have  been  grievously  disappointed  by  its  results  ? 
Science  has  indeed  worked  marvels  during  the  present 
century  in  every  department,  and  has  thus  yielded  a 
rich  harvest  for  our  social  life  and  earned  our  gratitude. 


RELIGION  IN  SPIRITUAL   LIFE.  261 

AVe  who  love  it,  and  devote  our  lives  to  it,  can  but  re- 
joice that  its  light  shines  around  us  more  brightly  than 
at  any  previous  period  in  the  world's  history.  That  light 
is  essential  to  our  very  lives  ;  but  light  is  not  the  only 
essential — we  also  require  warmth  for  our  souls,  and 
science  has  no  warmth  to  offer.  Nor  can  a  strictly 
moral  life  provide  us  with  that  warmth.  I  quite  admit 
that  our  age  has  progressed  in  general  morality.  I  am 
not  one  of  those  laiidatores  temporis  acti  who  extol  the 
virtues  of  their  forefathers  and  deplore  the  moral  degen- 
eracy of  their  contemporaries.  History  teaches  other- 
wise. Our  manners  have  been  softened,  and  our  moral 
insight  refined.  Nor  is  any  religion  possible  nowadays 
unless  united  with  the  purest  ethics.  But,  conversely, 
without  the  inspiring  breath  of  religion,  ethics  must  lan- 
guish and  sink  to  the  level  of  a  mere  commonplace,  social 
morality.  Among  other  things,  our  science  has  demon- 
strated by  historical  and  psychological  research  that 
the  religious  need  is  a  general  human  need.  And  the 
more  we  study  religion,  the  further  we  penetrate  into 
its  history,  the  better  we  understand  the  nature  of  its 
doctrines,  so  much  the  more  clearly  we  shall  see  that 
it  is  entitled  to  precedence  in  our  spiritual  life,  because 
the  religious  need  is  the  mightiest,  profoundest,  and 
most  overmastering  of  all.  Let  no  dread  of  ecclesiasti- 
cal ambition  and  sacerdotal  tyranny  prevent  us  from 
recognising  this ;  for  they  are  powerless  except  when 
true  religion  languishes  or  slumbers.     Once  awaken  re- 


262  SCIENCE  OF  RELIGION. 

ligion  to  full  life  and  activity,  and  their  influence  is 
gone.     Will  it  now  reawake  ? 

Our  brilliant  nineteenth  century  has  achieved  won- 
ders, but  it  has  been  disappointed  in  its  expectation  of 
such  a  reawakening.  The  waning  century  seems  weary 
and  almost  despairing.  It  sometimes  speaks  of  the 
bankruptcy  of  science  and  the  illusions  of  philosophy. 
There  are  even  persons  who,  in  their  despair,  are  willing 
to  be  fettered  anew  with  the  shackles  from  which  the 
courage  and  perseverance,  the  toil  and  strife,  of  saints 
and  heroes  liave  freed  them.  Others,  however,  are  reluc- 
tant to  throw  away  a  single  precious  conquest  of  the  cen- 
tury, or  to  give  up  the  smallest  fragment  of  their  dearly 
bought  liberty  ;  and  they  therefore  decline  to  surrender 
to  those  who  would  at  once  deprive  them  of  all  these 
blessings.  And  others,  again,  are  convinced  by  their 
study  of  religious  life,  and  of  the  laws  which  govern  it, 
that  the  substance  of  these  conquests  and  the  mainten- 
ance of  that  liberty  can  only  be  guaranteed  provided 
they  lead  to  a  new  manifestation  of  religious  life.  Our 
science  cannot  call  forth  such  a  manifestation,  but  it 
may  pave  the  way  for  it  by  tracing  the  evolution  of 
religion,  explaining  its  essentials,  and  showing  where 
its  origin  is  to  be  sought  for.  Let  it  do  its  own  duty 
in  throwing  light  upon  the  part  that  religion  has  ever 
played  in  the  history  of  mankind,  and  still  plays  in 
every  human  soul.     And  then,  without  -preaching,  or 


RELIGION  IN  SPIRITUAL  LIFE.  263 

special  pleading,  or  apologetic  argument,  but  solely  by- 
means  of  the  actual  facts  it  reveals,  our  beloved  science 
will  help  to  bring  home  to  the  restless  spirits  of  our 
time  the  truth  that  there  is  no  rest  for  them  unless 
"they  arise  and  go  to  their  Father." 


I  N  D  E  X. 


Abraham  sacrifices  his  son,  vol.  I. 
25,  177. 

Achaemenides,  established  church 
^  of,  vol.  II.  169. 

Adityas,  the  seven,  I.  91. 

Adoration,  rudiments  of,  I.  87 — 
must  a  god  be  worthy  of  ?  II. 
97  —  essence  of  piety  and  of 
religion,  198  seq. — may  take 
false  course,  201 — lower  forms 
of,  201-206  — a  vital  principle 
of  religion,  206  —  One  alone 
worthy  of,   207. 

-^schylus  modifies  myth  of  Pro- 
metheus, I.  113. 

Esthetic  element  introduced  into 
religion  by  the  Greeks,  I.  194- 
198  —  element  in  religion,  II. 
243. 

Agni,  a  Vedic  god,  I.  91 — Nu- 
ras'ansa,  a  messenger  of  God, 
II.  116. 

Agnostics,  views  of,  regarding  re- 
ligion, II.  5. 

Ahaziah,  mission  of,  to  Ba'al-zebub, 
II.  95. 

Ahriman,  full  of  death,  II.  92,  98. 

Ahunavairya,  efficacy  of  the,  I. 
133 — prayer  used  as  a  spell,  II. 
139. 


Ahura,  title  of  supreme  god  in 
Zarathushtrism,  I.  110^  mean- 
ing of,  159. 

Ahura  Mazda,  the  all-wise  Lord, 
I.  47 — Atar,  the  fire  of,  48 — 
all  -  wise  and  supreme,  123 — 
fire,  the  spirit  of,  124 — called 
Father  by  the  Avesta,  159 — 
reigns  in  heaven,  164  —  not 
absolutely  supreme,  II.  92 — 
abode  of,  113 — superior  to  all 
the  nature-gods,  120.  See  also 
Ormazd. 

Aisa,  or  Destiny,  I.  165. 

Aius  Locutius,  I.  90,  198. 

Allat,  queen  of  the  lower  regions, 
I.  164 — ruler  of  the  dead,  II. 
114. 

Amun-Ra  of  Thebes,  I.  91. 

Ancestors,  worship  of  deceased,  I. 
200. 

Angra  Mainyu,  a  malevolent  spirit, 
I.  48 — reigns  in  hell,  164 — the 
Evil  One,  co  -  ordinate  with 
Ahura  Mazda,  II.  92— power- 
less during  the  millennium  of 
Yima,  110.      See  also  Ahriman. 

Animals,  real  or  mythical,  as  sym- 
bols, I.  100— worship  of,  101. 

Animism,  nature  of,  I.  66  seq. — 
dominates,  but  does  not  give 
rise    to    religion,    72 — spiritism 


266 


INDEX. 


higher  than,  ih. — religions  dom- 
inated by,  78,  81,  82 — monotony 
of,  282. 

Anthropical  form  of  religion,  I. 
100. 

Anthropology  supplies  materials 
for  science  of  religion,  I.  13,  17, 
78 — an  element  in  creeds,  II. 
73 — religious,   74. 

Anthropomorphism,  philosopher 
disgusted  with,  I.  36 — nature 
of,  II.    100,   117-121. 

Anti-religious  philosophical  the- 
ory,  II.   210,   212. 

Anu,  one  of  the  triad,  Anu,  Bel, 
and  Ea,  I.  90 — chief  Babylonian 
god,  161. 

Apelt,  E.  F.,  bases  religion  on 
esthetic  ideas,   II.   243-244. 

Aphrodite,  cult  of,  I.  108. 

Apollo,  the  beloved  son  of  Zeus, 

I.  91 — as  a  mediator,  167 — em- 
bodies wealth  of  Greek  spiritual 
life,  196  —  as  a  mediator,  II. 
117. 

Apotheosis,  doctrine  of,  I.  166. 

Aramati,  I.  48. 

Architecture,   earliest,  is   secular, 

II.  251. 

Art-s,  cult  of,  I.  108 — chained  to 
prevent  his  escape,  II.  205. 

Argentinus,  I.  90,  198. 

Arminians,  II.  82. 

Arnold,  Matthew,  defines  religion, 
II.  244. 

Art  reconciled  with  religion  by  the 
(xreeks,  I.  196 — relation  of  re- 
ligion to,  297 — advanced  by 
faith,  II.  192 — can  religion  be 
source  of?  248 — 'religion  hos- 
tile to,'  255 — purified  by  re- 
ligion, 258 — proposed  as  a  sub- 
stitute for  religion,  260. 

Artemis,  the  Ephesian  goddess,  I. 
97. 

Aryaman,  I.  48. 


Aryan  religions,  I.  56,  90,  128, 
153,    155. 

Aryans  supposed  less  cruel  than 
.Semites,  I.    177. 

Asas,  the  Scandinavian,  I.  105 — 
abodes  of  the,  II.  88. 

Ashtarte,  I.  97. 

Assimilation,  doctrine  of,  I.  45 — 
in  the  religion  of  Iran,  51 — 
promotes  development,  226,  234 
— in  case  of  Judaism,  236 — dis- 
tinct from  imitation  or  adoption, 
237 — meaning  and  importance 
of,   242. 

Assur,  god  of  the  Assyrians,  I. 
91  ;  II.  96 — wars  in  name  of, 
II.    173. 

Assyrian  religion,  tendency  to 
monotheism  in,  291. 

Asura,  highest  title  of  chief  Vedic 
gods,  I.  110 — also  applied  to 
evil  spirits,  Ih. — meaning  of, 
159. 

Atar,  the  fire  of  Ahura  Mazda,  I. 
48. 

Athene,  the  spoiled  child  of  Zeus, 
I.  91 — conception  of,  elevated, 
118 — transferred  to  the  domain 
of  the  mind,  196. 

Authority  and  Reason,  II.  41-47. 

Avataras  of  Vishnu,  I.  168 — as 
mediators,  II.    117. 

Avesta,  the  sacred  scriptures  of 
the  Mazdayasnans,  I.  46,  50 — 
fragments  of  religious  literature, 
124 — worship  of  the,  133 — mil- 
lennium of  Yima  described  by 
the,  II.  109-1 10-~hymns  of  the, 
138 — as  origin  of  first  estab- 
lished church,   169. 


B 


Ba'al,  bull  of,  I.  101.  ^ 

Ba'al-zebub,  god  of  Ekron,  II.  yU 


95. 


INDEX. 


267 


Babylonian  religion,  moral  element 
in,  I.  102 — penitential  psalms, 
117— theology,  106— god,  Anu, 
161 — Deluge,  172  —  religion, 
features  of,  187-188  —  wisdom 
famed,     188  —  gods,     believed 

.  identical  with  foreign  gods,  291 
— cosmogony,  II.  55 — legend  of 
Ishtar,  114  —  traditions  as  to 
first  race  of  men,   232. 

Bach's  Passion,  II.  153. 

Balfour,  A.  J.,  on  progress,  not 
implied  by  mere  movement,  I. 
278 — on  musical  development, 
ib. — on  'Authority  and  Reason,' 
II.  41— quoted,  56. 

Beers,  Jan  van,  depicts  Romish 
ritual,  11.  10,  11. 

Bel,  king  of  the  dead,  I.  90 — one 
of  the  triad,  Anu,  Bel,  and  Ea, 
lb. — god  of  the  lower  regions, 
106— legend  of,  11.    106. 

Bellerophun,  as  a  mediator,  II. 
118. 

Bender,  religion  defined  by,  II.  5. 

Bergaigne  on  the  Vedic  Religion, 
I.  23. 

Bible,  inspiration  of,  II.  185. 

Bne  Elohim,  angels  and  sons  of 
God,  II.    116. 

Bodhi,  the  highest  illumination, 
I.   171. 

Book  of  the  Dead,  I.  185. 

Breidhablik,  abode  of  Baldur,  II. 
88. 

Brahma  becomes  chief  of  the  gods, 
I.  91 — subordinated  to  Buddha, 
171. 

Brahmanism,  Professor  Hopkins 
on,  I.  23 — develops  into  Bud- 
dhism,   193. 

Brosses,  President  de,  on  fetishes, 
I.  75. 

Budde,  Karl,  on  the  nomad  ideal, 
I.  223. 

Buddha,    universalism    of  the,    I. 


126 — originally  a  man,  histor- 
ical or  mythical,  170 — deified, 
171 — as  a  mediator,   II.    117. 

Buddhism,  I.  124  seq. — univer- 
salistic,  126  —  developed  from 
Brahmanism,  193 — the  first  uni- 
versalistic  religion,  ih. — extreme 
of  theanthropy,  208 — destroys 
individuality,  210 — divided  in- 
to different  sects,  284 — as  a 
church,  II.  169,  170 — progress 
of,  II.  173. 

Buddhistic  scriptures,  II.  170. 

Bundahish,  narrative  of,  as  to  the 
first  human  pair,  II.  110. 

Bunsen  bases  religion  on  moral 
order  of  the  world,  II.  192, 
193. 


C 


Caird,  Edward,  on  types  of  re- 
ligion, I.   61— quoted,   II.    121. 

Caird,  John,  on  history  and  phil- 
osophy of  religion,  I.  16. 

Calvin,  theology  of,  I.  37  ;  II.  9, 
61. 

Calvinists,  II.  82. 

Cambyses  kills  the  sacred  bull  of 
Hapi,  I.  101. 

Carlyle  quoted,  II.  202. 

Causality,  instinct  of,  as  a  source 
of  religion,  II.  224. 

Ceremonies  —  see  Observances, 
Worship. 

Chaldsean  impostors,  I.  188. 

Chamisso,  lines  by,  II.  201. 

Chinese  burial  customs,  I.  73 — re- 
ligion, 99 — religions  described, 
200. 

Christ,  preaching  of,  I.  37 — uni- 
versalism of  the  teaching  of, 
126 — 'preaching  of,  not  orig- 
inal/ 253— Master  of  all,  271 
—divinity  of,  II.  193,  194. 
See  also  God-man,  Mediator. 


268 


INDEX. 


Christian  group  of  religions  the 
highest  known,  I.  148  —  the- 
ology, 11.    193,    194. 

Christianity,  divisions  of,  I.  56 
— nature  of,  124  seq. — univer- 
salistic,  126 — divergent  ideals 
of,  200,  201 — combines  theo- 
cratic and  theanthropic  prin- 
ciples, 208,  209 — proclaims  God 
above  man  and  in  man,  209 — 
proclaims  brotherhood  of  men 
and  freedom  of  individual,  ih. 
— history  of,  continues  earlier 
history  of  religion,  211 — in- 
augurates new  epoch,  212 — 
diversity  in  churches  and  sects 
of,  283,  284. 

Church  arises  with  the  ethical  re- 
ligions, I.  136 — etymology  and 
meaning  of,  137  !<eq. — and  State, 
138  se^.— at  first  dominates  all 
intellectual  life,  140 — formation 
of  churches,  141  seq. — attains  in- 
dependence, ih. — State  churches, 
142 — proper  vocation  of,  143, 
144 — idea  of  a  universal,  287, 
288;  II.  162  — religion  em- 
bodied in.  II.  155  seq. — as  a 
social  phenomenon,  158 — potent 
factor  in  development  of  relig- 
ion, 159 — Protestant  chui-ches, 
160 — must  religion  always  be 
embodied  in  a?  161 — 'has  had 
its  day,'  164 — begins  with  local 
organisations,  165 — local  com- 
munities unite  to  form,  167 — 
at  first  based  on  State,  168 — 
Zarathushtrism,  an  established, 
ih.  —  of  the  Achtemenides,  an 
established,  169 — Judaism,  a, 
ih. — Islam,  a,  ih. — Buddhism, 
a,  ih. — formed  by  co-operation, 
172 — and  State,  175 — requires 
independence,  176  —  exclusive 
domain  of,  178 — beautiful  mis- 
sion  of,    179-181 — the    Roman 


Catholic,  I.  21,  56 — ritual  of, 
II.  10,  11  —  aims  and  merits  of, 
73,  159,  185. 

Churches  must  be  studied,  I.  21  — 
decline,  but  religion  survives, 
38— the  Protestant^  56— Schil- 
ler's saying  as  to JJ.\&Q. 

Civilisation,  how  far  It  influences 
religion,  I.  221 — Rechabites  op- 
posed to,  224 — religion  cannot 
be  withdrawn  from,  225 — in  ad- 
vance of  worship,  228 — educa- 
tive effect  of,  on  religion,  230, 
232 — advance  of,  increases  dif- 
ferences in  religions,  283 — how 
far  due  to  religion,  II.  254 — 
'religion  hostile  to,'  255 — re- 
ligion promotes  and  hallows, 
257. 

Cobet,  the  Hellenist,  I.  7. 

Conceptions,  religious,  must  be 
studied,  I.  21 — cease  to  satisfy, 
35 — conception  of  God  changes, 
36,  37  —  of  Deity  inadequate 
basis  of  religion,  II.  21,  22 
— distinguished  from  emotions 
and  sentiments,  6,  14,  16,  18 
— of  faith,  25  seq.—oi  God,  76 
.s(-q. 

Confucianism,  I.  121 — consists 
mainly  in  worship  of  spirits, 
200. 

Conquest,  effect  of,  on  religion,  I. 
82. 

Conscience,  does  religion  originate 
in?  II.  217  seq. 

Constituents  of  religion,  II.  1,  6 — 
distinguished  from  manifesta- 
tions of  religion,  6,  7 — emotions, 
conceptions,  sentiments,  14,  20, 
22. 

Continuity  of  development  appar- 
ently broken,  I.  266-269— re- 
stored by  great  reformers,  269- 
270 — law  of,  in  religious  de- 
velopment,  271. 


INDEX. 


269 


Coquerel,  Athanase,  on  tenacity  of 
religious  conviction,  I.  230. 

Creation,  doctrine  of  the,  I.  161. 

Creeds  cease  to  satisfy,  I.  35 — 
differ  as  men  differ,  36 — tend 
to  become  simplified,  293,  294 — 
long  stationary,  II.  66 — not  the 
foundation  of  religion,  67 — 
study  of,  necessary,  69  seq. — 
include  theology,  anthropology, 
and  soteriology,  73 — formation 
of,  183  —  not  the  essential  in 
religion,    189. 

Creuzer,  theory  of,  as  to  philosophy 
and  religion,  II.  57. 

Cult,  an  element  of  religion,  II. 
4.  See  also  Worship,  Observ- 
ances. 


D 


Daevas,  gods  of  the  Iranians,  I.  48 
— afterwards  evil  spirits,  ib. ,  50, 
51  —  lying  spirits  and  devils, 
110 — worship  of  the,  123 — use 
of  the  term,  159 — evil  spirits, 
II.  92 — warded  off  by  spells, 
139. 

Dagon,  I.  101. 

Darius  purchases  a  new  Hapi-bull, 

I.  101 — moved    by    statecraft, 
285. 

Dead,  customs  regarding  the,  I. 
73— king  of  the,  90 — abode  of 
the,  ib. — Book  of  the,   185. 

Death,  primitive  notion  of,  I.  80 
— not    understood    by    savages, 

II.  232. 

Deluge,    the   Babylonian,    I.    106, 

172;    II.    106. 
Demeter,    the    Greek    goddess,    I. 

97. 
Demons  not  at  first  distinct  from 

gods  and  spirits,  I.  89. 
Deus,  meaning  of,  I.  158. 
Development   in   general,   and   of 


religion,  I.  28  seg.  —  defined, 
28-30 — of  religion,  meaning  of, 
31-35 — not  mere  change,  38 — 
of  religion  by  the  Greeks,  40 — 
'  unconscious  growth,'  42 — 
chief  objection  to,  43 — by  as- 
similation, 45 — objections  to,  51 
— steps  or  stages  in,  54  —  of 
lower  nature-religions,  58  seq. 
— all-embracing  law  of,  87 — 
of  higher  nature -religions,  88 
seq.  —  therianthropic  and  an- 
thropical  stages  of  religions, 
100 — of  the  ethical  religions, 
120  seq. — promoted  by  indi- 
viduality, 145,  146 — place  of 
spiritualism  in,  147 — directions 
of,  150  seq. — directions  distinct 
from  stages  of,  151 — religious 
and  general,  154 — how  far  af- 
fected by  one-sidedness,  179 — 
in  particular  religions,  182  seq. 
— of  religion  promoted  by  the 
Greeks,  194-198 — of  very  com- 
plex nature,  201 — by  reaction, 
202 — laws  of,  213  seq. — do  laws 
of,  exist?  217 — laws  of,  difler 
from  laws  of  history,  ib.  —  of 
religion  traced  by  science  of  re- 
ligion, 218,  219 — general,  influ- 
ences religion,  220  seq. — pure 
Yahvism  hostile  to,  225 — pro- 
moted by  assimilation,  226,  234, 
236,  242— of  worship,  slow,  228 
— religious  revelation  advances 
with  general,  232 — law  of,  in 
unity  of  mind,  ib. — important 
general  law  of,  239 — a  conflict, 
243  —  of  religion,  influence  of 
the  individual  on,  244  seq. — 
personality  a  vital  factor  in, 
246,  248,  249,  253,  254— influ- 
ence of  woman  on,  256,  257 — 
may  be  retarded  by  personality, 
261, 262 — is  growth,  not  change, 
263 — unity  and    continuity  of, 


270 


INDEX. 


264  .-ieq.  —  apparently  broken, 
266-269 — restored  by  mighty 
reformers,  269  -  27 1  —  develop- 
ment continuous,  271 — of  re- 
ligion, essentials  of,  272  seq. — 
'  from  the  sensuous  to  the 
spiritual,'  275 — from  uniform- 
ity to  diversity,  281 — tendencies 
to  unification  and  differentiation 
in,  289 — tendency  of,  towards 
monotheism,  290-292  — simpli- 
fies worship  and  creeds,  292- 
295 — essence  of  religious,  299, 
800. 

Diana  of  the  Ephesians,  how  far 
an  idol,  II.  203,  204. 

Dione,  I.  98. 

Dionysus,  as  a  mediator,  11.  118. 

Diversity  in  religion  proof  of  its 
vitality,  I.  284,  287— unity  in, 
288,  289 — in  general  develop- 
ment, 295. 

Doctrine,  how  far  nature  of  re- 
ligion learned  from,  I.  22,  24 — 
infancy  of,  78  —  begins  to  be 
organised,  93 — of  the  philoso- 
phers as  to  the  god  of  gods,  116 
— confounded  with  the  writ 
containing  it,  132 — fixed  in  the 
ethical  religions,  134 — becomes 
simplified,  293,  294— growth  of, 
II.  183 — not  of  essence  of  re- 
ligion, 186 — value  and  objects 
of,  189 — a  fruit  of  religion,  but 
not  religion  itself,  196. 

Dogmatic,  an  element  of  religion, 
11.  4. 

Drujas,  evil  spirits,  I.  48 — lying 
spirits,  II.  92 — warded  off  by 
spells,   139. 

Dualism  of  spiritual  and  non- 
spiritual  unsatisfactory,  I.  277. 

Duhm,  on  Ecstatics  and  Mystics, 
I.  270. 

Dyaus-pitar,  the  Vedic  god,  I. 
98. 


E 


Ea,  the  creator,  I.  106 — god  of 
the  sea,   II.   96. 

East- Aryan  religion,  divisions  of, 

,  I.   56., 

Ecole  d'Etudes  religieuses,  I.  3. 

Edda,  Christian  and  classical  ele- 
ments in  the,  I.  169. 

Egypt,  tombs  of,  older  than 
temples,  II.   251. 

Egyptian  Religion,  therianthropic, 

I.  100,  101 — moral  treatises 
connected  with,  102 — develop- 
ment of  the,  109  —  character 
of  the,  184-186— tendency  to 
monotheism  in  the,  291 — mag- 
ical papyri  of,  11.  106,  114, 
138. 

Elijah  taken  up  to  heaven,  II.  115 
— contest  of,  with  the  priests  of 
Ba'al,  131. 

Elohim,  Satan  among  the  sons  of 
the,  11.  87. 

Elysian  Fields,  abode  of  the  heroes, 

II.  113. 

Emanation,  creation  by,  I.  161. 
Emotions,  distinguished  from  con- 
ceptions and  sentiments,  II.  6, 

14,  16,  18 — religion  begins  with, 

15,  16 — how  awakened,  15-18, 
25 — inadequate  as  basis  of  re- 
ligion, 20,  22 — right  of  religion 
a  right  of  the,  236. 

Enoch  taken  up  to  heaven,  11. 
115. 

Epimetheus,  '  afterthought  of,'  II. 
111. 

Ethic,  an  element  of  religion,  II. 
4.      See  also  Morality. 

Ethical  and  naturalistic  principles 
conflict,  I.  64 — ideas,  advance 
of,  102 — element,  progress  of 
the,  105 — reform,  personal  ele- 
ment in,  130.       ^ 

Ethical    Ileligions,j66,    67  —  ap- 


INDEX. 


271 


proached  by  the  nature  -  re  - 
ligions,  93  —  developed,  120 
seq. — mainly  particularistic,  ex- 
cept Buddhism  and  Christianity, 
124 — sacred  Scriptures  of  the, 
133,  135,  136— intolerance  of 
the,  134 — Church  arises  from 
the,  136 — individualism  source 
of,    144,    145. 

Euripides  modifies  the  myths,  I. 
115. 

Evil  in  the  world,  how  accounted 
for,  II.  91 — as  means  of  educa- 
tion, II.  93. 

Evolution — see  Development. 


Fa  Hian,  the  Chinese  pilgrim,  I. 
281. 

Faith,  conceptions  of,  II.  25  seq. 
—  difference  between  science 
and,  33,  34,  38 — how  far  com- 
municable, 39,  40 — lofty  aim 
of,  47 — a  doctrine  of  life,  68 — 
Semitic  conception  of,  89 — root- 
ideas  in  all  conceptions  of,  125 
— vital,  but  not  source  of  re- 
ligion, 191,  192  —  essential  in 
science  and  art,   192. 

Family,  basis  of  polytheism,  I.  96 
— principle  of,  in  religion,  154. 

Fate,  the  will  of  Zeus,  I.  91 — in 
the  theanthropic  religions,  165. 

Fatherhood,  ideal  of,  I.  97 — in 
the  theanthropic  religions,  159, 
160  —  of  God  in  Christianity, 
209. 

Fechner,  religious  -  philosophical 
theory  of,  II.   210. 

Fetish,  etymology  and  meaning 
of,  I.  75 — De  Brosses  on  fe- 
tishes, ih. — worship  of  fetishes, 
75-80— object  of  fetishes,  II. 
157. 


Fetishism,  origin  of,  I.  75,  77. 

Feuerbach,  theory  of  origin  of 
religion  adopted  by,  II.  222- 
224,  227. 

Finite,  and  Infinite,  gulf  between, 
II.  116 — idea  of,  preceded  by 
that  of  Infinite,    121. 

Finns,  religion  of  the,  I.  98. 

Fire,  worship  of,  I.  124. 

Flint,  E,.,  on  historical  method, 
I.    17. 

Folkvang,  abode  of  dead  warriors, 
I.  90;  II.  113. 

Forms  of  Religion,  all,  must  be 
studied,  I.  9 — many  different, 
31 — however  imperfect,  are  ne- 
cessary, 276 — confounded  with 
religion  itself,  222. 

France,  science  of  religion  in,  I.  3. 

Freethinkers,  I.  231. 


G 


Gaia,  I.  98. 

Galilee,  new  religious  life  dawned 
in,  II.  184. 

Gar(Jdmana,  abode  of  Ahura  Mazda, 
II.  113. 

Gathas,  revelation  contained  in 
the,  I.  47 — worship  of  the,  133 
— miraculous  power  ascribed  to, 
11.  138. 

Gautama,  the  Buddha,  as  a  medi- 
ator, II.  118. 

Genesis,  Book  of,  description  of 
Paradise  in,  II.  109 — similar  to 
narrative  of  Bundahish,  110 — 
regards  man  as  by  nature  im- 
mortal, 231. 

Geniuses,  attempt  to  account  for, 
I.  258 — as  founders  or  reformers 
of  religion,  hailed  as  redeemers, 
249. 

Germany,  science  of  religion  in, 
I.  3. 


IXDEX. 


Giffoid  Bequest,  I.  3. 

God,  conception  of,  changes,  I. 
36.  37 — gods  originally  magi- 
cians, 79 — gods,  demons,  and 
spirits  not  at  first  quite  distinct, 
89  —  gods,  organisation  of,  in 
triads,  &c.,  90 — the  gods  be- 
come more  humanised,  92 — 
Mexican  and  Peruvian  god  of 
gods,  95 — fatherhood  of,  97 — 
therianthropic  and  anthropical 
gods,  100  —  gods  not  under 
moral  law,  103  —  as  con- 
ceived by  the  philosophers,  116 
— conception  of,  elevated,  117 
— mediators  between  man  and, 
130 — conception  of,  determines 
nature  of  religion,  152 — thean- 
thropic  and  theocratic  concep- 
tions of,  155-160 — approaches 
man  in  theanthropic  religions, 
160  —  theocratic,  is  absolute, 
163  —  theanthropic,  power  of, 
limited,  164,  165 — men  trans- 
formed into  gods,  168  —  man 
becomes,  171  —  familiarity  to- 
wards theanthropic  gods,  173  — 
sovereignty  of,  indispensable 
element  in  religion,  180 — above 
man,  and  in  man,  proclaimed 
by  Christianity,  209 — concep- 
tion of,  becomes  loftier,  227 — 
original  conception  of,  vague, 
290 — oneness  of,  in  the  Veda,  ib. 
— supremacy  of  one,  291,  292 — 
no  religion  without,  II.  73 — 
conceptions  of.  76  seq. — evolu- 
tion of  conceptions  of,  79 — 
superhuman  power  essential 
attribute  of,  80  seq.  —  as  the 
Almighty,  85  —  superhuman 
character  of  gods,  86 — word  of, 
becomes  creative  power,  87 — 
omniscience  and  omnipresence 
of,  ib. — abodes  of  gods,  88 — 
plastic    representation     of     the 


gods,  88,  89 — ethical  attributes 
ascribed  to  gods,  89  seq. — the 
Holy  One,  90— author  of  evil? 
91 — benevolent  and  malevolent 
gods,  ib. — omnipotence  of,  93 — 
'  a  power  of  nature  only  becomes 
a  god  when  worshipped,"  94 — 
abiding  element  in  conception 
of,  95 — strange  gods  recognised, 
95,  96  —  eveiy  superhuman 
power  regarded  as  a  god,  97 — 
must  a  god  be  worthy  of  adora- 
tion ?  {'6. — power  of,  regarded  at 
first  as  magical,  99 — and  man, 
relationship  between,  100  seq. 
— religion  impossible  without 
belief  in,  101  —  anthropomor- 
phised,  ib. — personality  of,  102 
— '  above  us,'  and  '  iu  us,'  a 
common  belief,  103 — men,  chil- 
dren of,  104,  105 — Hebrew  con- 
ception of,  105  — Egyptian  con- 
ception of,  106,  107 — in  the- 
anthropic religions  gods  become 
men  and  men  gods,  107,  108 — 
man  as  son  of  the  gods,  111 — 
Zarathushtrian  ideal  of,  113 — 
friends  of,  114,  115 — and  man, 
gulf  between,  116 — conception 
of  true  son  of,  and  true  son  of 
man,  117-121  —  reconciliation 
with,  124 — and  man,  approach 
of,  131,  132 — prayer  to,  essen- 
tial of  worship,  133  seq. — sacri- 
fices and  offerings  to,  143  seq. 
— sacrificial  meals  supposed  to 
be  attended  by  the  gods,  150 — 
— response  of,  to  His  worship- 
pers, 154  —  national  and  local 
gods,  172  .^eq. — Scripture,  word 
of,  184,  185  —  supremacy  of, 
and  man's  kinship  with,  as  a 
source  of  religion,  193 — super- 
terrestrial  personality  of,  195 — 
adoration  of,  198  seq.  —  wor- 
shipped in  symbols,  203 — primi- 


INDEX. 


273 


tive  customs  as  to  special  gods, 
205  —  belief  in,  how  revealed, 
210,  211 — conscience  as  voice 
of,  217  seq. — mans  wish  to  be, 
223 — gods  not  all  nature- gods, 
225 — origin  of  belief  in,  227 — 
dwells  in  man  as  the  Infinite, 
the  Absolute,  22 S  '^.q. — help- 
lessness of  man  without,  239 
seq. — unity  with,  object  of  the 
religious  man,  245. 

God-man.  doctrine  of  the,  I.  167 
.<€q. ;  n.  101.  104  #€3.,  Ill, 
117-121. 

Goethe  on  the  miraculous,  IL  99 
— on  the  transitory,  1»3.  /c>  ^ 

Gospel,  preservation  of  the,  IL 
1S4. 

Great  Britain,  science  of  religion 
in,  I.  3. 

Greek -Roman  culture,  influence 
of,  I.  194. 

Greeks,  development  of  religion 
by  the,  I.  40 — elevate  religion, 
194-198  —  rationalism  of  the, 
wedded  to  Oriental  mysticism, 
208 — identify  chief  foreign  gods 
with  Zeus.  291. 


Hades,  Zeus,  Poseid«:-n,  and,  the 
Greek  triad,  I.  90 — god  of  the 
lower  religions,  109. 

Haoma,  god  of  the  cup  of  immor- 
tality, L  50;  n.  150. 

Hapi,  sacred  bull  of.  I.  101. 

Hartmann,  Ed.  von,  on  types  of 
religion,  I.  61,  65 — classifies  the 
chief  reKgions,  154  —  view  of, 
on  origin  of  religion,  II.  223, 
224. 

Hathor,  I.  97. 

Heathen  customs  and  names,  sur- 
vival of.  I.  44,  45. 


Hegel,  religions  classLfied  by,  L 
58 — characterises  the  chief  re- 
ligions, 183 — thesis,  antithesis, 
and  synthesis  of,  204 — influence 
of,  on  theology,  IL  61. 

Heimdall,  as  a  mediator,  IL  117- 

Heine,  cynicism  of,  LL  157. 

Hepharstus,  cult  of,  L  lOS. 

Hera,  development  of  conception 
of,  L  60 — the  Argelian,  97 — 
the  jealous  queen  of  heaven, 
111. 

Herakles,  myth  of,  110-113 — as  a 
mediator,  167 — received  into 
Olympus,  n.  115— as  a  medi- 
ator, lis. 

Hermes,  messenger  of  the  gods, 
LL  116. 

Hesiod  narrates  myth  of  Prome- 
theus, L  113. 

Hindu,  unfettered  imagination  of 
the,  I.  191 — bold  speculation 
and  gross  sensuality  of  the,  ib. 

History  of  religion  distinct  from 
science,  L  13 — supplies  mate- 
rials, ih.  — and  philosophy  of 
religion,  16,  17 — Prof.  Flint  on 
study  of,  17 — do  laws  of,  ex- 
ist? 217  —  shows  growth,  not 
mere  change,  263 — disregarded 
by  superficial  theorists,  IL  1S3 
— secular  preceded  ecclesias- 
ticaL  253  —  great  epochs  in, 
outcome  of  religious  reform, 
225. 

Hoekstra,  S.,  on  individuality,  L 
250 — class  ides  individuals,  254, 
255 — on  origin  of  religion,  LL 
223-224. 

Holland,  first  to  found  chairs  of 
history  and  philosophy  of  re- 
ligion, L  2.  3. 

Homer,  myths  transformed  by,  L 
195. 

Honover,  prayer  used  as  a  spell, 
n.  139.      See  also  Ahtmavairva. 


YOL.  II. 


274 


IXDEX. 


Hope  transfers  Paradise  to  future, 

II.  Ill,  123. 
Hopkins,  Prof., on  Brahmanic  rites. 

I.  23. 
Hylozoism,  I.  74  :  II.  56. 


Iblis,  dreaded  as  an  evil  spirit,  II. 
96. 

Idolatry  not  original  form  of  re- 
ligion, I.  7 1  — of  personality  in 
a  sense  permissible,  260 — ex- 
plained, II.  85  —  is  adoration 
essence  of?    201 — defined,    203 

Imagination  insuiJicient  basis  of 
study,  I.  19,  20 — not  the  origin 
of  conception  of  faith,  II.  27 — 
creative  power  and  value  of,  28, 
29 — products  of,  superseded  by 
others,  30  -  32  —  can  religion 
originate  in?    214,  215. 

Immortality,  belief  in,  II.  114, 
115 — taken  for  granted,  231. 

Incarnation,  doctrine  of,  I.  166. 

Indian  religions,  origin  of,  I.  56 — 
and  Iranian  religions  develop  in 
different  directions,  188 — asceti- 
cism, 189  —  aspirations  and 
ideals,  192,  193 — spiritualism, 
extravagant,  201 — brutish  nat- 
uralism,  202. 

Individual  character  of  religion,  I. 
154. 

Individualism,  source  of  ethical 
religions,  I.    144,   145. 

Individuality,  see  Personality. 

Individuals  classified  by  Professor 
Hoekstra,  I.  254 — potent  motors 
of  development,  257. 

Indra,  a  Vedic  god,  I.  91 — king 
of  the  gods,  98 — the  self-ruler, 
159 — subordinated  to  Buddha, 
171 — functions  of,  II.   84. 


Infinite,  and  Finite,  gulf  between, 
II.  116 — idea  of,  precedes  that 
of  the  Finite,  121 — man's  desire 
for  union  with,  149  —  within 
man  differentiates  him  from 
lower  animals,  228  —  'percep- 
tion of  the,'  229,  230— man  has, 
within  him,  whether  consciously 
or  not,  230 — lines  of  Alfred  de 
Musset  on  the,  ib. — takes  pre- 
cedence of  the  Finite,  231-233 — 
'  within  us,'  rejected  by  the 
sceptic,  234. 

Intolerance  sets  in  with  fixed 
doctrine  of  the  etliical  religions, 
I.  134. 

Iphigeneia,  sacrifice  of,  I.  176. 

Iranian  religion,  development  of 
the,  I.  51 — origin  of  the,  56 — 
religion  reformed,  110 — and 
Indian  religions  develop  in 
ditferent  directions,  188 — doc- 
trines of  morality,  189 — para- 
dise, 190 — prayer  of  the,  II.  55. 

Ishtar  of  Western  Asia,  I.  97 — 
a  matriarchal  goddess,  107 — 
Freya,  the  Scandinavian,  108 — 
descent  of,  into  hell,  164;  II. 
114. 

Islam,  a  revelation-religion,  I.  121 
— how  far  particularistic,  126, 
127 — temples  and  sanctuaries  of, 
172 — extreme  of  theocracy,  208 
— a  church,  II.  169. 

Isolation  of  hermits,  Rechabites, 
and  others  on  religious  grounds, 
I.  223-225,  231— hinders  de- 
velopment, 233  —  peoples  in, 
stationary,  235 — extolled,  241. 


Jacob,  dream  of,  at  Bethel,  II.  88. 

Jastrow,  Monis,   theory  of,   that 

science,  art,  and  morality  spring 


INDEX. 


275 


from    religion,  II.   248 — saying 

of,   255. 
Jeldl-ed-Din    Riimi,    the    Persian 

mystic,  II.    132. 
Jesus,  anointing  of,  I.  25,  26. 
Job,    trials  of,    I.    162  —  includes 

Satan  among  sons  of  the  Elohim, 

n.  87. 

Johnson,  Samuel,  on  'self- recovery 
by  reaction,'  I.  202. 

Josiah,  Mosaic  law  established  by, 
I.  39. 

Jotuns,  the  Scandinavian,  I.  105. 

Judaism,  sects  of,  I.  55 — founded 
on  the  Thora,  121 — a  partic- 
ularistic religion,  126 — individu- 
ality of,  145 — theocratic,  adopts 
theanthropic  ideas,  206 — paves 
way  for  Christianity,  207 — pro- 
claims the  national  god  to  be  the 
onlv  true  deity,  291 — a  church, 
n.'l69. 

Jupiter,  worship  of,  I.  60 — of  the 
Romans,  91 — called  Father,  159 
— tricked  by  Xuma  Pompilius, 
174,  175. 


Kalevala,  epic  poems  of  the  Finns, 
I.  99. 

Kant,  influence  of,  on  theology, 
n.  61 — partly  bases  religion  on 
moral  order  of  the  world,  192, 
193. 

Karman,  elaborate  sacrificial  ser- 
vice of  the,  I.   293. 

Kings,  deification  of,  I.  16S. 

Kings,  or  canonical  books  of  Con- 
fucianism, I.  121 — veneration  of 
the,  133. 

Kinship  as  basis  of  religion,  II. 
130. 

Kong-tse,  founder  of  Confucianism, 
I.  121— as  a  mediator,  II.  118. 


Koran,  book  of  revelation,  I.  121. 
Kremer,     Alfred     von,     Arabian 

anecdote  told  by,  I.    163. 
Kronos,  I.  98. 
Krshna  as  a  mediator,  I.  167  ;  II. 

117. 


Lamas  of  Tibet,  II.  170. 

Lang,  Andrew,  on  modem  myth- 
ology, n.  231. 

Lao-tse,  founder  of  Taoism,  I.  122 
— as  a  mediator,  II.  118. 

Last  Supper,  views  regarding,  I. 
26. 

Law  does  not  bind  gods,  I.  103 — 
of  development,  historical  and 
religious,  217  ■*^5. 

Le  Comte,  Professor,  on  develop- 
ment, L  30. 

Lectistemia  of  ihe  Romans,  II. 
150. 

Lipsius,  view  of,  as  to  origin  of 
religion,  IL  222-224. 

Literature,  can  religion  be  origin, 
of  ?  n.  248 — earliest  literature 
is  secular,  252. 

Locke,  influence  of,  on  Remon- 
strant theology,  II.   61. 

Lodensteijn,  praises  solitude,  I. 
241. 

Loki,  enfant  te'rrihle,  L  108. 

Love,  source  of  true  religious  life, 
L  294. 

Luther  on  the  profanum  vuJgu-s^ 
IL    141. 


M 


Magic,  belief  in,  L  79,  SO,  85 
— effect  of,  on  the  Shaman, 
IL  108 — distinct  from  religion, 
135  —  magical  power  ascribed 
to  prayers,  136-139 — directed 
against  dreaded  poAvers,   140 — 


276 


INDEX. 


'a  disease  of  religion,'  141 — dis- 
tinct from  mysticism,   142. 

Mahavira  the  Jina,  as  a  mediator, 
II.  118. 

Male'akim,  angels  and  sons  of 
God,  II.   116. 

Man,  disposition  of,  determines 
creed,  I.  36 — God  and,  inter- 
relation of,  117 — mediators  be- 
tween God  and,  130,  132 — con- 
ception of  relation  of  God  to, 
determines  religion,  152 — ap- 
proaches God  in  the  thean- 
thropic  religions,  160  —  men 
transformed  into  gods,  168 — 
becomes  God,  171  — gulf  be- 
tween God  and  man  ever  wi- 
dens in  theocratic  religions,  ih. 
— affinity  of,  with  God  indis- 
pensable element  in  religion, 
180 — God  in,  doctrine  of  Chris- 
tianity, 208  —  only  knows  in 
part,  II.  238 — helpless  without 
support,  239 — in  despair  seeks 
protection  of  beneficent  spirits, 
240 — hopes  and  believes  in  a 
better  world,  241 — spiritual  life 
of,  244  seq. — though  moral,  dis- 
satisfied, 247— Infinite  within, 
badge  of  humanity,  248 — re- 
ligion central  authority  in  spir- 
itual life  of,  254. 

MaiXduk  of  Babylon,  I.  91  — 
functions  of,  II.  84 — the  crea- 
tor,   106. 

Matriarchal  goddess  Ishtar,  I.  107. 

Matriarchate,  principle  of,  in  re- 
ligions, I.    97. 

Mazda  Ahura — see  Ahura  Mazda. 

Mazdayasnans,  sacred  Scriptures 
of  the,   I.   46. 

Mediator  between  men  and  the 
gods,  I.  130,  132— doctrine  of 
a,  166  seq. — S'raosha  as  the, 
189 — belief  in  a,  11.  115  seq. 
— demi-gods,  heroes,  kings,  &c., 


as  mediators,  117-121  —  doctrine 
of  a,  not  confined  to  theanthropic 
religions,  119. 

Melanchthon  on  religious  studies, 
II.  69. 

Melek — see  Moloch. 

Mesha,  king  of  Moab,  sacrifices 
his  son,   I.   25,    176. 

Mexican  god  of  gods,  I.  95. 

Midhgardh  serpent,  I.  105. 

Missionaries  in  higher  ethical  re- 
ligions, II.   173,   174. 

Mithra,  chief  god  of  the  Medes 
and  Persians,  I.  50 — and  Va- 
runa,   satellites  of,  II.   87. 

Mithras  legend  transferred  to 
Christ,  II.    118. 

Moira,  or  Destiny,  I.  165. 

Moksha,  a  kind  of  release  or  re- 
demption, I.  65 — how  attained, 
170— defined,  II.  124. 

Moloch,  worship  of,  II.  220. 

Monotheism  of  Islam,  I.  208 — 
progress  of,   291,  292. 

Morality  religions,  I.  62  —  con- 
nected with  religion,  102 — 
progress  in,  not  identical  with 
progress  of  religion,  273 — re- 
lation of  religion  to,  297 — is 
religion  identical  with  ?  II.  244 
— cannot  be  severed  from  re- 
ligion, 245,  248 — can  religion 
be  origin  of?  248  —  'religion 
hostile  to,'  255-257 — '  declines 
as  religion  progresses,'  256  — 
not  a  substitute  for  religion, 
261.      See   also   Ethic,   Ethical. 

Morphology  of  religion,  I.  27,  54. 

Moses,  taken  up  to  heaven,  II. 
115. 

Mother,  divine  head  of  spirit- 
world,  I.    97. 

Muir,  Dr  John,  '  Original  Sanskrit 
Texts  '  by,  II.  59 — on  the  Vedic 
hymns,  138. 

Miiller,   Max,   on   Science   of   Re- 


INDEX. 


277 


ligion,  I.  1,  2,  16 — on  classes  of 
religions,  42  —  on  polytheism, 
mythology,  &c.,  II.  83 — terms 
mythology  'a  disease  of  lan- 
guage,' 141  —  'missionary  re- 
ligions' of,  174 — traces  religion 
to  'perception  of  the  Infinite,' 
228-230. 

Musset,  Alfred  de,  lines  by,  on 
the  Infinite,   II.    230. 

Mysticism  exaggerated,  I.  202 — 
Oriental,  wedded  to  Greek 
rationalism,  208 — distinct  from 
magic,  II.  142. 

Mystics,  views  of,  regarding  re- 
ligion,  II.   5. 

Mythology,  how  far  nature  of  re- 
ligion learned  from,  I.  22,  24 — 
root-idea  of,  85 — succeeds  myth- 
formation,  88 — of  Romans  very 
poor,  198  —  the  philosophy  of 
antiquity,  II,  58 — theories  as 
to,  83 — 'a  disease  of  language,' 
141 — not  originally  a  religious 
doctrine,  250. 

Myths,  infancy  of,  I.  78 — forma- 
tion of,  83-85 — reduced  to  a 
theological  system,  83  —  suc- 
ceeded by  mythology,  88 — be- 
come repugnant,  93  —  not  all 
originally  nature  -  myths,  II. 
225. 


N 


Naturalism,  reaction  against,  I, 
147 — conflicts  with  ethical  prin- 
ciples, 64. 

Nature -gods,  not  all  gods  were 
originally,   II.   225. 

Nature-myths  ethically  modified 
by  poetry  and  philosophy,  I. 
110,  114 — not  all  myths  were 
originally,   II.   225. 

Nature-Religions,  the  lowest,  I. 
58  seq. — animistic  in  character. 


64  —  on  the  mythopa?ic  level, 
84 — highest,  89  seq. — on  the 
confines  of  the  ethical,  93  — 
at  highest,  semi -ethical  onlj', 
117. 

Nike,  with  wings  clipped,  to  pre- 
vent her  escape,  II.  205. 

Nirvana,  the  Buddhistic,  I.  170 
— a  redemption  or  release,  II. 
124. 

Numa  Pompilius,  story  of,  in  Ovid, 
I.  81 — tries  to  trick  Jupiter, 
174,    175. 

Nusku,  a  messenger  of  God,  II. 
116. 

Nut,  the  heaven  -  goddess,  I.  97, 
98. 


0 


Objective  and  subjective  religions, 

I.  61. 

Observances  must  be  studied,  I. 
21 — cease  to  satisfy,  35 — primi- 
tive, 80 — barbarous,  accounted 
for,  103 — original  object  of,  169 
— slow  to  progress,  228 — com- 
plex and  abstruse,  gradually 
simplified,  292,  293  — the  ob- 
jects,   motives,    and    forms    of, 

II.  148  seq. — the  expression  of 
religious  conceptions,   183. 

Odhin  called  Father,  I.  160. 

Offerings,  original  object  of,  I.  80; 
II.  127  seq. — varieties  of,  147. 

Omnipresence,  an  attribute  of  God, 
II.  87. 

Omniscience,  an  attribute  of  God, 
II.  87. 

Ontology  of  religion,  I.  27. 

Ormazd,  giver  of  all  good,  II.  92. 
See  also  Ahura  Mazda. 

Osiris,  king  of  the  dead,  I.  90 — 
myth  of,  109 — dead  man  be- 
comes, 11.    107. 

Ouranos,  I.  98. 


278 


IXDEX. 


Pandora's  box,  II.  111. 
Paradise,  legends  of,  II.  109-115. 
Paris  '  becomes  more  wicked  and 

more  pious,'  II.  256. 
Parseeism,  evolution  of,  I.  46. 
Parsees  are  Zarathushtrians,  I.  124 

— belief  and  customs  of  the,  II. 

138,  139. 
Parthenos  developed  from  Athene, 

I.  118. 

Particularistic  religions,  I.  126. 

Patriarchal  religions,  I.  98. 

Perseus,  as  a  mediator,  11.  118. 

Persian  traditions  as  to  oldest  race 
of  men,  II.  232. 

Personality,  religion  inseparable 
from,  I.  230 — great  influence  of, 
en  religion,  244  i^eq.,  246,  248, 
249,  252,  253,  254,  257— power 
of  may  be  exaggerated,  260 — 
'idolatry  of,'  ib. — may  retard 
progress,  261,  262  —  restores 
unity  and  continuity  of  develop- 
ment, 269-271 — promotes  devel- 
opment of  religion,  244  saq.  — 
mainspring  of  all  progress,  246 
— power  of,  denied  by  some,  248 
— Hegel's  doctrine  as  to,  249 — 
Buckle's  and  Macaulay's  views 
on,  ih. — Macaulayon,  252 — Wtal 
importance  of,  ih.,  253 — of  God, 

II.  102,  195. 
Peruvian  chief  god,  I.  96. 
Pfleiderer,  Otto,  founds  philosophy 

of  religion  on  history,  I.  16 — 
on  Philosophy  of  Religion,  II. 
70 — religion  defined  by,  3 — 
quoted,  62 — describes  Mediator, 
115 — defines  worship,  129  — 
describes  twofold  character  of 
worship,  131 — on  forms  of  sacri- 
tice,  144,  147 — on  'holy  men,' 
156,  158 — on  local  church  or- 
ganisations, 164 — Fechner  quot- 


ed by,  210 — on  origin  of  religion, 
223. 

Philolo£:v,  comparative,  value  of, 
I.    153. 

Philosophy,  of  religion,  I.  15,  16 
— relation  of  religion  to,  297 — 
and  religion,  11.  48,  50  seq. — 
distinguished  from  religion,  51 
seq. — in  disguise,  religion  defined 
as,  57 — in  myths  of  antiquity, 
58  —  gradually  diiferentiated 
from  religion,  59 — opposed  to 
religion,  60, 65  67 —  and  religious 
doctrine,  61 — is  religion  a  kind 
of?  242 — cannot  be  severed  from 
religion,  245,  248 — can  religion 
be  origin  of?  248,  250 — 'religion 
hostile  to,'  255 — no  real  antag- 
onism between  religion  and, 
257-259. 

Piety,  rudiments  of,  I.  86 — essence 
of  religion,  II.  196  seg. — defined, 
197 — essence  of,  is  adoration, 
198-200. 

Pindar  modifies  myth  of  Tantalus 
I.  115 — famous  lines  of,  161. 

Poetrj'  modifies  the  myths,  I.  114 
— is  religion  a  kind  of  ?  II,  243 
— akin  to  religion,  248 — 're- 
ligion hostile  to,'  256 — no  real 
antagonism  between  religion  and 
poetry,  257-259. 

Polydsemonism,  I.  81 — becomes 
polytheism,  89. 

Polytheism,  mythology  of,  I.  83 — 
succeeds  polydtemonism,  89  — 
monarchical,  91 — begins  to  be 
organised,  94  —  dominated  by 
tradition,  95  —  transition  from 
polydsemonism  to,  96  —  family, 
basis  of,  ih. — transition  to,  98 — 
stages  of,  100 — origin  of,  290 — 
nearly  extinct,  292 — once  the 
normal  form  of  belief,  II.  77 — 
gods  of,  personified  agencies,  82 
— accounts  for  evil   by  benev- 


INDEX. 


279 


olent  and  malevolent  gods, 
91. 

Polyzoism,  I.  72  ;  II.  56. 

Positivists  teach  that  morality 
must  supersede  religion,  I.  30. 

Power,  of  religion,  more  or  less 
constant  throughout  history, 
280  —  constant  and  essential 
attribute  of  a  god,  II.  80  seq. 
— divine  word  a  creative,  87. 

Powers  of  Nature  personified,  I. 
84. 

Prayer,  worship,  offerings,  II.  127 
seq. — most  constant  element  in 
worship,  133  —  distinct  from 
magic,  135  seg.— not  mere  sense- 
less incantation,  138  -  141  — 
development  of,  142 — offerings 
associated  with,  143  —  God's 
answer  to,   154  seq. 

Priesthood,  origin  of,  I.  85. 

Prometheus,  myth  of,  I.  113  — 
tricking  Zeus,  174  —  'fore- 
thought of,'  II.    111. 

Prthivi-matar,  the  Vedic  goddess, 
I.  98. 

Psychological  origin  of  religion,  I. 
71. 

Psychology  affords  materials  for 
science  of  religion,  I.    17. 

Ptah  of  Memphis,  I.  91. 

Purva-Mimaiiisa,  the  ritual  school, 
I.  56 — contains  elaborate  sacri- 
ficial service,  293. 

Pygmalion,  myth  of,  II.  19. 


R 


Ra,  the  sun-god,  11.  106. 
Ragnarok,  '  twilight  of  the  gods,' 

I.  165. 
Rama,  as  a  mediator,  I.  167. 
Ramman,  Sin,  and  Shamash,   the 

lesser  Babylonian  triad,  I.   90. 
Rationalists,  mistake  of,  II.  48. 


RauwenhofF,  religion  defined  by, 
II.  3 — on  conceptions  of  faith, 
27 — defines  a  god,  94 — on  two- 
fold character  of   worship,   131 

—  defines  worship,  156  —  on 
religious  communities,  164 — on 
moral  order  of  the  world,  193 — 
on  origin  of  religion,  217  — 
opposes  prevalent  theory,  223. 

Rbhus,  deified  sorcerers,  II.  108. 
Reaction,  progress  by,  I.  202,  203. 
Reason  and  Authority,   II.   41-47 

—  can  religion  originate  in  ? 
215. 

Rechabites  isolated,  and  opposed 
to  civilisation,  I.   224. 

Redeemers,  founders  and  reformers 
of  religion  hailed  as,  I.  249. 
See  also  Mediator,  Redemption. 

Redemption,  religions  of,  I.  65 — 
or  release,  aim  of  all  religions, 
66 — Brahmanic  and  Buddhistic 
conceptions  of,  170 — offered  to 
all  by  Buddhism,  193 — need  of, 
II.  123-125 — idea  of,  common 
to  all  religions,    124. 

Reform,  ethical  religions  result 
from  a  process  of,  I.  63 — of 
religion  required,  117,  119 — 
ethical,  130 — inevitable  result 
of  religious  evolution,   301. 

Regnaud,  Paul,  on  mythology  and 
doctrine,  I.  24. 

Religion,  all  forms  of,  must  be 
studied,  I.  9 — function  of  the- 
ology with  regard  to,  14— 
philosophy  of,  15 — history  of, 
16 — nature  of,  how  learned,  22 
— morphology  and  ontology  of, 
27 — development  of,  28  seq. — 
forms  of,  develop  and  decline, 
31 — progresses,  though  churches 
decline,  38 — classes  of  religions, 
41 — of  the  Parsees,  46 — study 
of  highest  forms  of,  insufficient, 
52 — formation    of    parties    and 


280 


INDEX. 


sects  in,  55 — classification  of 
religions,  58  seq.  — '  subjective 
and  objective,'  61 — defined  as 
'  world-negation,'  62  —  nature- 
religions  and  ethical  religions, 
63 — 'religions  of  redemption,' 
65 — religions  of  revelation,  66 
— Animism  not  a,  68 — idolatry 
not  the  source  of,  71- — origin  of, 
psychological,  Ih. — poly  daemon- 
ism,  earliest  form  of,  79 — de- 
votion and  adoration  character- 
istics of,  87 — polytheism,  later 
form  of,  89  —  patriarchal  re- 
ligions, 98 — therianthropic  and 
anthropical  stages  of,  100 — 
morality  associated  with,  102 
seq, — reforms  in,  110,  117,  119 
— the  ethical  religions,  120  seq. 
— Buddhism  and  Christianity 
universalistic  religions,  124-129 
— personal  religions,  130 — sa- 
cred books  and  churches  arise  in 
the  ethical  religions,  133  seq. — 
individualism  of  the  ethical  re- 
ligions, 144  seq. — is  Christian 
highest  conceivable  ?  148 — char- 
acter of,  how  determined,  152 — 
theanthropic  and  theocratic  re- 
ligions, 155  seq.  —  ideal  and 
tendency  of  theanthropic  re- 
ligions, 167 — tendency  of  theo- 
cratic religions,  171 — sacrifices 
connected  with,  175  —  thean- 
thropic and  theocratic  extremes 
in,  180 — definitions  of  religions, 
183  seq. — Buddhism  first  uni- 
versalistic, 193 — developed  by 
Greek  culture,  194  —  aesthetic 
element  in,  197 — Roman  con- 
ceptions of,  198 — early  Judaism 
a  pure,  later  Judaism  a  mixed, 
206 — Greek  -  Roman  a  mixed, 
207— theocracy  and  theanthrop- 
ism  united  in  the  Christian,  208- 
210 — true,   revealed   in   Christ, 


211 — does  civilisation  injure? 
221 — forms  of,  distinguished 
from,  222 — crimes  in  name  of, 
223 — develops  along  with  civil- 
isation, 225,  230 — law  of  unity 
of  mind  applied  to,  232 — isola- 
tion retards,  assimilation  pro- 
motes, 233  seq. — is,  impaired 
by  contact  with  culture  ?  240 — 
development  of,  by  individuals, 
244  seq.  —  saviours,  reformers, 
redeemers  in,  248  -  249  —  influ- 
ence of  personality  on,  254, 
255  —  influence  of  woman  in 
development  of,  256  —  person- 
ality, how  far  hostile  to,  261 
— unity  in,  264  sfq. — question 
as  to  continuity  in,  267 — sur- 
vives all  its  successive  forms, 
268 — power  of  personality  in, 
269-271 — development  of,  con- 
tinuous, 271 — essentials  of  de- 
velopment of,  272  seq. — is  pro- 
gress in  morality  progress  in? 
273 — not  identical  with  ethics, 
275 — forms  necessary  in,  276 — 
ambitions  and  usurpations  in 
name  of,  277,  278 — power  of, 
constant,  280 — shows  vitality 
in  diversity,  284  —  unity  in, 
efforts  to  promote,  285  seq. — 
linked  at  first  with  art,  science, 
philosophy,  &c.,  gradually  be- 
comes independent,  295  seq. — 
reform  of,  inevitable  result  of 
religious  evolution,  301 — mani- 
festations and  constituents  of, 
II.  1 — what  are  constant  ele- 
ments in?  3 — defined  by  Rhys 
Davids,  i6. — defined  by  Rauwen- 
hofi",  Teichmiiller,and  Pfleiderer, 
4 — views  of  agnostics  and  mys- 
tics regarding,  5 — viewed  as  a 
practical  system,  ih. — constitu- 
ents of,  distinguished  from  mani- 
festations, 6,  7 — manifestations 


INDEX. 


281 


of,  in  prayers,  hymns,  litanies, 
myths,  confessions  of  faith,  7,  8 
— manifested  in  actions,  9,  10, 
1 1 — cruelties  practised  in  name 
of,   12 — true  components  of,  6, 

14,  22 — begins  with  emotion,  15 
— valueless  if  purely  emotional, 
20 — morbid  conditions  of ,  12,  23 
— essence  of,  23,  24 — beginnings 
of,    distinguished    from    origin, 

15,  25 — and  philosophy,  48,  50 
$eq. — distinguished  from  phil- 
osophy, 51  seq. — philosophy  in 
disguise,  57 — gradually  differ- 
entiated from  philosophy,  59 — 
opposed  to  philosophy,  60,  65- 
67 — relation  of,  to  philosophy, 
61  seq. — begins  with  conceptions 
awakened  by  emotions,  67 — 
cruelties  in  name  of,  68 — creeds 
summarise  elements  of,  73 — 
without  a  God  impossible,  ib. 
— watchword  of,  75 — every,  a 
religion  of  redemption,  ib. — 
'God  above  us,'  and  'God  in 
us,'  is  a  belief  common  to  every, 
103  —  theocratic  and  thean- 
thropic,  104  seq. — Hebrew, 
nature  of,  ib. — Babylonian,  105 
—  Egyptian,  106,  107  — belief 
in  immortality  connected  with, 
114,  115 — idea  of  Infinite  in, 
121 — worship,  prayers,  and  of- 
ferings inseparable  from,  127 
seq. — worship  not  chief  element 
in,  128  —  how  far  based  on 
kinship,  130  —  extinct  without 
prayer,  133 — Renan  and  Rob- 
ertson Smith  account  for,  135 
— does  not  originate  in  super- 
stition or  sorcery,  136  seq. — 
'  sorcery  a  disease  of,'  141  — 
sacrifice  essential  to,  144  seq, 
importance  of  ritual  in,  152 
.seg. — as  a  social  phenomenon, 
155    seq. — forms    necessary    in 


every,  158 — must  ethical,  be 
embodied  in  church?  161 — dis- 
tinguished from  church,  162 — 
is,  aberration?  165,  166 — ten- 
dency to  union  in,  167  -^eq. — 
of  missionary  character,  174 — 
ethical,  requires  to  be  inde- 
pendent, 176 — sole  mission  of 
chmxh,  178  seq. — essence  of, 
182  seq. — external  and  internal 
elements  of,  ib. — doctrine  and 
worship  not  essence  of,  186, 
189 — is  faith  essence  of?  191^ 
192  —  God's  supremacy,  and 
man's  kinship  with  God,  ele- 
ments in,  193  —  Siebeck's  de- 
finition of,  194 — is  piety,  197 — 
adoration  essence  of  piety  and 
of,  198  seq. — and  idolatry  dis- 
tinguished, 203,  204 — inquiry 
as  to  origin  of,  207  seq. — re- 
ligious and  anti-religious  theo- 
ries as  to,  210  seq. — is,  a  crea- 
tion of  fancy  ?  214 — is,  result 
of  reasoning?  215  —  how  far 
founded  on  conscience,  217  seq. 
— is  sentiment  basis  of?  221 — 
conflict  of  sense  of  self  and 
sense  of  necessity  as  basis  of, 
223  —  world-negation  supposed 
basis  of,  227  —  '  perception  of 
the  Infinite  '  as  basis  of,  228 
seq. — the  Infinite  in  man  true 
origin  of,  230  seq. — right  of,  is 
a  right  of  the  emotions,  236 — 
place  of,  in  spiritual  life,  237 
seq. — a  support  in  need,  doubt, 
or  despair,  239  seq. — relation  of, 
to  science,  art,  philosophy,  and 
ethics,  242 — aesthetic  element 
in,  243— morality  not  identical 
with,  244 — peace  of  soul  object 
of,  245  —  how  far  source  of 
science,  art,  &c. ,  248  seq. — con- 
duces to,  but  not  source  of,  all 
civilisation,    254  —  '  hostile    to 


282 


INDEX. 


culture,'  255 — 'taints  morality 
with  selfishness,'  256 — 'moral- 
ity declines  with  progress  of,' 
256 — not  truly  hostile  to  sci- 
ence, philosophy,  poetry,  &c., 
257  seq.  —  art  or  science  or 
ethics  can  never  be  substitute 
for,  260,  261 — reawakening  of, 
262,  263.  See  also  Develop- 
ment, Ethical  Religions,  Na- 
ture-Religions, Science  of  Re- 
ligion, &c. 

Religiosity,  subjective  side  of  re- 
ligion, II.  183 — source  of  re- 
ligion,  191. 

Religious-philosophical  theory  of 
religion,   II.   210. 

Renan,  Ernest,  accounts  for  origin 
of  religion,  II.  135  —  on  the 
Eesthetic  element  in  Christian- 
ity,  243. 

Revelation  proclaimed  by  Zara- 
thushtra,  I.  47 — religions  of, 
66,  120  seq. — idea  of,  common 
to  all  religions,  131 — confound- 
ed with  the  writ  recording  it, 
132 — interpreters  of,   II.    156. 

Rgveda  calls  the  highest  gods 
father  or  mother,  I.  159  — 
quoted,  II.  54 — partly  secular, 
253. 

Rhea,  I.  98. 

Rhys  Davids,  religion  defined  by, 
II.  3. 

Ritual — see  Worship,  Observances. 

Roman  Catholic  Church,  charac- 
teristics, aims,  ritual,  and  merits 
of,  I.  21,  56;  II.  10,  11,  73, 
159,  185. 

Roman  mythology  poor,  198 — 
merits  of  Romans  described  by 
Mommsen,  199 — religion,  ten- 
dency  to   monotheism  in,   291. 

Rothe,  Richard,  theory  of,  that 
church  should  be  absorbed  by 
State,  II.   170. 


Rshi's,  singers  of  the  Vedic  hymns, 
*  I.  132. 

Riickert,  lines  by,  II.  17. 
Rudra,     S'iva,    and    Vishnu,    the 
Hindu  triad,  I.   91. 


S 


Sacrifice  of  sons,  I.  25. 

Sacrifices,  origin  of,  1. 103 — human, 
prevail  longer  in  theocratic  than 
in  theanthropic  religions,  175 — 
examples  of  human,  175  seq. — 
associated  with  prayer,  II.  143 
seq. — nature  of,  144-152. 

S'akyamuni  prepares  for  his  ap- 
pearance as  the  Buddha,  I. 
270. 

Salvation,  object  of  all  religious 
doctrine,  II.    75. 

Sangha,  the,  germ  of  a  church, 
II.    170. 

Saoshyaiits,  prophets  of  salvation, 

I.  47. 

Sargon  deified,  II.  118. 
Satan,  called  in  the  Book  of  Job 
one  of  the  sons  of  the  Elohim, 

II.  87  —  dreaded,    though    not 
superhuman,  98. 

Saviour — see  Mediator. 

Scandinavian  mythology,  I.  105. 

Schiller  declined  to  join  church, 
II.    166. 

Schleiermacher,  II.  61,  64. 

Schopenhauer  on  philosophy  and 
religion,   II.   48. 

Schultze,  Fritz,  on  fetish  worship, 
I.  76. 

Schwartz,  Karl,  on  the  essence  of 
religion,  II.  243. 

Science,  '  alone  solves  riddles  of 
life,'  I.  222 — relation  of  religion 
to,  297  —  and  faith,  difference 
between,  II.  33,  38  — distin- 
guished from  knowledge,  35 — 


INDEX. 


283 


defined,  36  —  cannot  advance 
without  faith,  192 — is  religion 
a  kind  of  ?  242  —  cannot  be 
severed  from  religion,  245,  248 
— can  religion  be  origin  of  ?  248 
— '  religion  hostile  to,'  255 — no 
real  antagonism  between,  and 
religion,  257-259 — proposed  as 
a  substitute  for  religion,  260. 

Science  of  Religion,  conception, 
aim,  and  method  of,  I.  1  aeq. — 
defined,  4 — objects  of,  8,  11, 
12 — is  philosophy  of  religion, 
15  —  material  for,  21 — must 
study  observances,  25  —  mor- 
phological and  ontological  parts 
of,  27  —  scope  of,  52  seq. — 
branches  of,  II.  1,  2 — method 
and  object  of,  70,  71 — anthro- 
pological, not  metaphysical,  72 
— must  study  every  form  of 
cult,  152 — parts  of,  188 — seeks 
only  for  origin  of  religion,  234 
— distinct  from  theology  and 
philosophy,  235  —  important 
function  of,   262,   263. 

Scriptures,  interpretation  of,  I. 
129 — confounded  with  the  doc- 
trine they  record,  132  —  the 
Brahmanic,  Zarathushtrian,  and 
Chinese,  133 — worship  of,  132, 
133 — sacred,  of  the  ethical  re- 
ligions, 133,  135,  136 — inspira- 
tion of  the,  II.  185. 

8eb,  the  earth-god,  I.  97,  98. 

Sects,  formation  of,  I.  55,  140 
seq. 

Self-consciousness,  progress  in,  im- 
plies spiritual  development,  I. 
300. 

Semites  supposed  more  cruel  than 
Aryans,  I.  177 — religion  of  the, 
II.  129,  146. 

Semitic  religions,  I.  56  —  Baby- 
lonian religion,  100,  128,  153, 
155. 


Sennacherib  recognises  Ea,  god  of 
the  sea,  II.  96, 

Sentiment  inadequate  as  basis  of 
religion,  II.  21,  22  —  distin- 
guished from  emotions  and  con- 
ceptions, 6,  14,  16,  18— de- 
velopment of  the  ethical,  89 — 
does  religion  originate  in?  221. 

Set,  god  of  death,  109. 

Shaman,  magical  power  of  the,  II. 
108. 

Shamash,  Sin,  and  Ramman,  the 
lesser  Babylonian  triad,  I.  90. 

Shu,  the  classical  books  of  Con- 
fucianism, I.    121. 

Siebeck,  Prof.,  classifies  religions, 

I.  62,  65 — on  Animism,  66 — on 
Zarathushtrism,  122 — on  Islam, 
127 — on  signs  of  religious  de- 
velopment, 276 — on  the  phil- 
osophy of  religion,  II.  182  seq. 
— defines  religion,  194  seq. — 
describes  religion  as  world- 
negation,  227. 

Siecke,  Ernst,  on  mythology,  11. 
84. 

Sin,  Shamash,  and  Ramman,  the 
lesser  Babylonian  triad,  I.  90. 

S'iva,  Vishnu,  and  Rudi'a,  the 
Hindu  triad,   I.   91. 

Smith,  Robertson,  on  the  religion 
of  the  Semites,  II.  129 — dis- 
tinguishes between  religion  and 
sorcery,  135  —  on  sacrificial 
meals  and  sacrifices,  130,  144- 
146. 

Sociology  affords  materials  for 
science  of  religion,  I.    17. 

Soma,  cup  of  immortalitj%  II.  150 
— Haoma  becomes  almost  only 
sacrifice,  I.   29 — modified,    189. 

Sophocles  humanises  the  myths,  I. 
115. 

Sorcery — see  Magic. 

Soteriology  an  element  in  creeds, 

II.  73. 


284 


INDEX. 


Spenta,  a  benevolent  spirit,  I.  48. 

Spiritism  higher  than  Animism,  I. 
72,  74— nature  of,  ih.,  82,  83, 
86. 

Spirits,  not  material  objects,  orig- 
inally worshipped,  I.  71 — super- 
human magicians,  79,  80 — man's 
intercourse  with,  81 — not  at  first 
distinct  from  demons  and  gods, 
89 — evil,  under  command  of  the 
supreme  gods,  161. 

Spiritualism,  I.  74 — place  of,  in 
development,    147. 

Spiritualistic  religions,  I.  120. 

Sraosha,  genius  of  obedience  and 
revelation,  I.  47  —  the  only 
mediator,  189 — a  messenger  of 
God,  II.    116. 

State  usurps  authority  over  re- 
ligion, I.  95— and  Church,  138 
— Church  tries  to  rule,  139 — 
interests  of,  modify  religions, 
285 — churches  established  by, 
11.   168,   169. 

Statins,  saying  of,  '  timor  fecit 
deos,'  II.    135. 

Strauss,  D.  F.,  teaches  that  art 
must  supersede  religion,  I.  30 
— on  hero-worship  as  substitute 
for  religion,  II.  202. 

Subjective  and  objective  religions, 

I.  61. 

Sumerian  text  on  sacrifice  of  son 

by  father,  I.  25 — religion,  99. 
Sun,  god  of  the  Peruvians,  I.  96. 
Supranaturalists,    mistake   of  the, 

II.  48. 

Sutras,  distinction  between  the,  I. 
133. 


Taboo,  I.  75. 

Taoism,  whether  an  ethical  re- 
ligion, I.  122 — becomes  gloomy 
superstition,  200. 


Temples  of  the  theanthropic  and 
the  theocratic  gods,  I.  172 — of 
the  Egyptians,  186. 

Theanthropic  religions,  I.  155, 
156,  158-160 — gods  not  absol- 
ute, 164,  165 — doctrines  of  apo- 
theosis and  incarnation,  166  seq. 
— mediators,  167  seq. — religions 
end  in  making  man  God,  171 
— gods,  temples  of,  172  —  re- 
ligions, sacri^ces  in,  175 — 
principle  carried  to  extreme, 
180  —  character  of  Zarathush- 
trism,  205  —  Greek  religion 
mainly,  207  —  Buddhism  ex- 
tremely, 208.  See  also  II.  104, 
107. 

Theocratic  religions,  I,  155-158 
— gods  absolute,  157 — religions 
widen  gulf  between  divinity 
and  humanity,  171-173 — gods, 
temples  of  the,  172 — religions, 
sacrifices  in,  175 — principle  car- 
ried to  extreme,  180 — tincture 
in  Zarathushtrism,  205 — ideas 
adopted  by  Greeks,  206 — Islam 
extremely,  208.  See  also  II. 
104,  105. 

Theology  dreads  science  of  reli- 
gion, I.  11— task  of,  12-14- 
Calvin's,  37 — myths  reduced  to 
a  system  of,  83  —  the  Baby- 
lonian, 106  —  an  element  in 
creeds,  II.  73 — ethical  school 
of,  82— of  the  Christians,  193. 

Therianthropic  stage  of  religion, 
I.  100. 

Theseus,  as  a  mediator,  II,  118. 

Thor,  the  Scandinavian  god,  I.  105. 

Thora,  the  law  revealed  to  Moses, 

I.  121 — origin  of  the,  11.  155. 
Thor-Donar,  the  Germanic  god  of 

thunder,  I.    Ill — functions    of, 

II.  84. 

Thursas,  the  Scandinavian,  I.  105. 
Tistrya,  storm-god,  I.  50. 


INDEX. 


285 


Tombs,  customs  regarding,  I.  73 
— of  the  Egyptians,   186. 

Totem,  '  the  original  sacrificial  vic- 
tim,' 11.  145. 

Totemism,  I.  75,  77. 

Tradition  dominates  polytheism, 
I.   95. 

Triads  of  gods,  I.  90. 

Tricolour,  'a  sacred  fetish,'  I.  77. 

Trinity,  dogma  of  the,  II.  193. 

Turn,  the  hidden  sun  -  god,  II. 
106. 

Tylor,  E.  B.,  on  Animism,  I.  66. 


U 


of,  I.  99. 

Union- Jack,  '  a  sacred  fetish,'  I. 
77. 

United  States,  science  of  religion 
in  the,  I.  3. 

Unity  of  the  mind,  law  of,  applied 
to  religion,  I.  232 — of  develop- 
ment apparently  broken,  266- 
269 — in  religion,  constant  striv- 
ing after,  285 — not  result  of 
mere  statecraft  or  policy,  285, 
286— Grotius  longed  for,  287— 
dear  to  Roman  Church,  ih. — by 
compromise,  how  far  possible, 
288— in  multiplicity,  289— in 
conception  of  God,  290-292 — 
tendency  to,  in  worship,  292, 
293  — in  doctrine,  293  — ten- 
dency to,  in  general  develop- 
ment,  295. 

Universalistic  religions,  I.  126. 

Unold  on  state  and  school,  IL 
176. 

Upton  on  religious  belief,  II.  50. 

Ural- Altaian  religion,  I.  98,  99. 

Uttara-Mlmamsa,  the  speculative 
school,  I.  56 — rejects  elaborate 
worship,  293. 


Valhalla,  I.   90— abode  of  Odhin, 

II.  88,  113. 
Valhull — see  Valhalla. 
Vans,  the  Scandinavian,  I.  105. 
Varuna,  chief  of  the  Vedic  gods, 

I.   91— king  of  the  gods,  98— 

the  all-ruler,  159 — and  Mithra, 

satellites  of,  II.  87. 
Vayu,  the  region  between  heaven 

and  hell,  I.  164. 
Veda,  a  book  of  revelation,  I.  121 

— rejected  by  the  Buddhists,  II. 

170. 
Vedic  aristocracy  of  gods,  I.  91 — 

triad,  ih. — hymns,  sung  by  the 

Rshi's,  132 — hymns,  origin  and 

nature    of,    II.    137  —  religion, 

sects  of  the,  I.   55,  56. 
Virgin,     adoration     of     the,     II. 

203. 
Vishnu,     S'iva,    and    Rudra,    the 

Hindu  triad,  I.   91. 


W 


Western  Asia,  anthropical  gods  of, 
I.  100.         A 

Whitney,  W.  Dwight,  on  science 
of  religion,  I.  2 — defines  science 
of  language,  5 — on  classes  of 
religion,  42 — types  of  religion 
described  by,  60 — on  Buddhism 
and  Christianity,  124. 

Woman,  influence  of,  on  religious 
development,  I.  256,  257. 

World  -  Negation  as  basis  of  re- 
ligion, I.  62 — supposed  bulwark 
of  religion,  223 — must  be  re- 
placed by  world  -  consecration, 
277. 

World-Religions,  I.  127. 

Worship,  of  fetishes,  I.  75-80 — 
infancy  of,  79 — of  magicians,  80 


286 


INDEX. 


— forms  of,  in  the  lower  and 
higher  nature  -  religions,  83  — 
origin  of,  85  —  begins  to  be 
organised,  93 — of  animals,  101 
—of  sacred  texts,  132,  133  — 
official,  in  the  nature-religious, 
138 — of  deceased  ancestors,  200 
—  slow  to  follow  civilisation, 
228 — at  first  simple,  becomes 
complex,  292— simplified,  293 
— not  the  sole  manifestation  of 
religion,  II.  9  —  of  deceased 
ancestors,  107  —  prayers,  and 
offerings,  127  seq. — not  chief 
thing  in  religion,  128 — maj'  be 
private,  129 — twofold  character 
of,  131 — prayer  most  constant 
element  in,  133^objects,  mo- 
tives, and  forms  of,  148 — strives 
after  luiion  with  God,  152 — 
requisites  of,  153 — 'faith  made 
visible,'  156. 


Yahve,  bull  of,  I.  101 — may  de- 
mand human  sacrifices,  177 — 
renounces  such  right,  179 — lofty 
conception  of,  ib. — temple  of, 
173 — strict  ideal  of  the  worship 
of,  223 — omniscient,  II.  87 — 
the  God  of  Jacob,  88 — rev-eals 
himself  to  the  prophet,  89,  105 
— creates  man  in  his  own  image, 
105 — answers  Elijah  on  Mount 
Carmel,  131 — wars  in  name  of, 
173. 

Yahvism,  pure,  hostile  to  all  high- 
er development,  I.  225. 

Yama,  king  of  the  dead,  I.  90. 

Yazatas,  the  Zarathushtrian,  I.  50, 


123 — the  adorable  ones,  II.  88, 
92. 
Yima,  millennium  of,  II.  109,  110. 


Zarathushti-a,  doctrine  of,  I.  47- 
51 — whether  historical  or  myth- 
ical, 121,  122  —  the  Iranian 
reformer,  168  —  revelation  to, 
133— Spitama,  as  a  mediator,  II. 
118. 

Zarathushtrism,  I.  47-51  —  an 
ethical  religion,  122 — character 
of,  191 — practical  piety  of,  ih. 
— theanthropic,  tinctured  with 
theocratic  elements,  205  —  re- 
conciles the  practical  with  the 
heavenly,  206 — inculcates  agri- 
culture, 224 — doctrines  of,  II. 
88,  92, 98 — legends  of,  regarding 
Paradise,  110 — doctrine  of  sal- 
vation in,  113 — Paradise  of,  ib. 
— prayers  of,  139 — as  a  state- 
church,  168 — creed  of,  169 — 
imposed  on  conquered  enemies, 
173. 

Zarathushtrotema,  II.  169. 

Zeller,  on  origin  of  religion,  II. 
223,   224. 

Zeus,  statue  of,  by  Phidias,  I.  41 
— development  of  conception  of, 
59 — Hades,  and  Poseidon,  the 
Greek  triad,  90 — of  the  Hellenes, 
91,  92 — father  of  gods  and  men, 
98 — conception  of,  elevated,  118 
— called  Father,  159 — tricked 
by  Prometheus,  174  —  of  the 
Hellenes  still  a  nature-god,  196 
— name  given  by  the  Greeks  to 
chief  foreign  gods,  291. 


PRINTED    BY   WFLLIAM   BLACKWOOD   AND  SONS. 


Date  Due 

.^>^ 

i^ 

^                    1 

1 

' '  y^fii^Js^^l 

.-«.,.M.*.«5M-^ 

-    1 ■ 

1 

! 1 

f) 

1 

m 


m 

m 


^IX&il^ 


m 


MM 


m^r-:^m'. 


Theological  Semmary-Speer  Librar; 


1    1012  01006  0947 


